normsmith | 19 Apr 2013 5:08 a.m. PST |
Just picked mine up from W H SMITHS (UK). Very nice, a good cover to cover read as BG was but I think a little more diverse and all the more better for that. Indeed it improves on both MW and BG so I think we the readers are definitely winners here. What is most striking is that this is now a real wargamers magazine just about wargaming – There are none of those historical type articles that just have a bit of wargaming tagged onto the end
.. thank goodness, at last! Good articles supported by good photography and a nice balance between the two. I feel that this magazine has a very strong future – well done to all involved who got this up and running. |
20thmaine | 19 Apr 2013 5:25 a.m. PST |
There are none of those historical type articles that just have a bit of wargaming tagged onto the end
.. thank goodness, at last! I've quite enjoyed reading these over the years in various magazines – if they're well writtn and cover something not obviously mainstream. A good series on WWII naval campaigns in Practical Wargamer sticks in the mind – although I've never actually gamed the period. |
MajorB | 19 Apr 2013 5:43 a.m. PST |
There are none of those historical type articles that just have a bit of wargaming tagged onto the end Excellent! If you want history articles there are plenty of titles available that provide just that, such as "History" and "Military History Monthly". |
Black Cavalier | 19 Apr 2013 6:40 a.m. PST |
>There are none of those historical type articles that just have a bit of wargaming tagged onto the end Or Wargames Illustrated. After subscribing to WI for 10+ years, I finally stopped taking it because it had turned into a military history magazine with a bit of wargaming tacked on. |
Ben Waterhouse | 19 Apr 2013 7:15 a.m. PST |
What is most striking is that this is now a real wargamers magazine just about wargaming – There are none of those historical type articles that just have a bit of wargaming tagged onto the end
.. thank goodness, at last! Pity
|
79thPA | 19 Apr 2013 7:48 a.m. PST |
Was it WI that had that dreadfully long series on WWI naval history a few years ago? I want my gaming mags to be about gaming and the hobby. A little potted history is fine as long as there is a nice scenario pay-off; I don't want to see pages and pages of history (especially over multiple issues). If I want that information I will read books. |
Jeff965 | 19 Apr 2013 7:56 a.m. PST |
|
waaslandwarrior | 19 Apr 2013 9:16 a.m. PST |
I also agree with 79thPA. I loved WI in those days, but I never got through that never ending series of WW1 naval articles. I don't mind a bit af history, but the main point is wargaming! |
laager50 | 19 Apr 2013 9:43 a.m. PST |
Got the new issue on my IPad and enjoyed it very much. Although thought the article by a 'wargames Widow' a bit long. |
Cambria5622 | 19 Apr 2013 9:45 a.m. PST |
A while ago I bought MW and found 1 article that was pure history and another (particularly lengthy) article that was almost all history with only a 2-sentence paragraph at the end that gave a faint nod to the fact it was in a wargames magazine. I wrote to Duncan who replied that that they are amongst the favourite articles with readers. I thought those readers should buy history magazine instead so us wargamers can have a more appropriate periodical for our hobby, so I'm really pleased with the change of editorship to Henry. |
cp models | 19 Apr 2013 10:30 a.m. PST |
Personally I think the odd historical article is fine as a primer for new periods and also perhaps with some info on what figures/rules are available for the period in question Another good way to do an historical article is do as above but combined with a painting guide for the period Also I think historical articles are easier to digest for potential gamers who pick up the magazine as a starting point but have not got into wargaming yet but have an interest in doing so I do agree however that historical articles should not dominate any wargames publication |
ubercommando | 19 Apr 2013 2:43 p.m. PST |
WSS has a nice approach to historical subjects: Here's a potted history, here's a scenario, here's a painting guide and here's a selection of 28mm miniatures from a variety of companies that we review (space precludes an in depth review of 15mm and other scales). Sarcasm aside, I'm eagerly awaiting the new MW issue. |
Gazzola | 19 Apr 2013 4:06 p.m. PST |
It is hard for any magazine to please every reader. Some want just wargaming articles, some want just their periods of interest and some want a variety. I remember buying Military Modelling which sometimes contained historical articles on actions and regiments etc, which other magazines did not include. It made the magazine different and special. There was, as there is now, no shortage of wargaming stuff in magazines and online, if that is all you want. And not all wargamers have the time to do decent, detailed or lengthy research. I've seen countless wargaming articles in mags and online that are, at their best, very loosly based on what really happened during various battles and campaigns. Not that everyone wants to base their games on historical facts, of course. But I think it would be completely selfish and totally unrealistic, for any reader just to expect a magazine, which has to cater for all tastes, to contain only what they want. The magazines are not just for them, they are for all wargamers. And I'm sure the new MW+BG will find its place within the wargaming world and will be around for a long time to come. |
normsmith | 20 Apr 2013 5:43 a.m. PST |
You can go to a lot of places to get historical accounts (including dedicated magazines) but there are far fewer places to go and get your wargaming fix in print form (4 mags now whittled down to 3 dedicated mags). It is against that background (and the title of the magazine) that I feel I want a wargame mag to squeeze in as much wargaming material as it can. At the heart of the matter though is also the level of contribution that an editor has to rely upon to keep the magazine going – considering the excellent quality of some of the blogs here, I think there is a great un-tapped source of potential contributors for magazines and many gamers are increasingly getting better at taking photographs that meet magazine standards, so that a contributor can offer a complete package to an editor with images that sync with the game being discussed
. not something that has always been the case in the past! P.S. for those who have the mag, the superb and interesting ancients piece (scenario and replay) by Steve Jones is a classic example of exactly what can make a wargames mag come alive and enthuse the reader – regardless of your area of interest. Best presented / written article that I have come across in ages. |
Schogun | 20 Apr 2013 7:21 a.m. PST |
Can someone explain how the digital subscription works? Do they send it to you via email? If so, in what format? Or do they tell you it's available to download then you have to fuss with some kind of non-pdf format like Kindle or Exactly? The website isn't clear. Thanks |
Jubilation T Cornpone | 20 Apr 2013 10:59 a.m. PST |
I'm really pleased with it. It's a good read, the photographs have finally been brought kicking and screaming into the 21st century and it has Henry's touch in the layout. Thank goodness! |
Whirlwind | 20 Apr 2013 11:22 a.m. PST |
@ Schogun, You go to Exact editions, but the option now exists to download a complete pdf from them. I did it yesterday and it worked fine, perhaps the photos are a little lower-res? That might be just me however! Regards |
Gazzola | 20 Apr 2013 3:01 p.m. PST |
normsmith There are countless sites that cover a historical wargame. I've come across quite a few when doing research. Just tap in the name of battle and very often it will pop up somewhere, with a decription of the game, rules and miniatures used, and some with sources and OOB's based on those sources. The beauty of the net and all that. But wargamers are a varied bunch, thankfully, and don't all want the same thing, apart something relating to wargaming. I'm not that keen on reading other people playing games with rules I do not use or in periods I have no interest in. But I accept that magazines have to cater for us all. And maybe wargaming is just miniatures and rules and nice photos to you, but to others it also involves history and research and the fun of seeing if history can be changed, which, if you do not know what actually happened in the first place, you will never really know. I suggest it is each to their own, and so far, the wargaming mags are doing a pretty good job and I imagine they will be around for as long as we keep supporting them and do not expect them to cater for individual wargamers. That would be the death of them. |
normsmith | 20 Apr 2013 3:34 p.m. PST |
TMP bug gave me a false post (above) but allowed me to delete it. What I had said was (this is short hand because i just can't be bothered typing it all out again) that my post(s) here are limited to being concerned with in print magazines. I am aware of web content (including my own site) but that is something different. I buy the 4 mags (now 3) and so feel elligable to comment as to what type of material I like to see in the mags and am happy for others to voice the same. |
Gazzola | 21 Apr 2013 1:53 a.m. PST |
normsmith Er, yes, that is what the threads are for, aren they? But whatever our views on magazine contents, and we all have different views on that, don't we, let's be thankful that we still have a few magazines around that hopefully, will offer something for as many readers as they can, as often as they can. And, although it is enjoyable using the net it is also very enjoyable and relaxing reading a magazine. And you never know, if the mags remaining survive, they might hopefully inspire future publications to be created – perhaps magazines just about wargaming certain periods or using certain rules, who knows. But I imagine the survival of the magazines will depend on whatever support they receive from wargamers. I'm off to buy at least one mag in a few days. Might only be one because I've spent far too much money recently on books, figs, paints and brushes. |
Volleyfire | 22 Apr 2013 2:16 a.m. PST |
Having found the new look mag nestling on the shelf in my local newsagent last week rather earlier than it usually seemed to appear I thought I would buy a copy just for curiosities sake as I had stopped my sub to Battlegames ages a go as it was exactly the same layout every issue I felt with the same contributors and same content. Well blow me if MW hasn't morphed into Battlegames with a little extra padding. All those things I didn't want to see month after month are back, how many table top teasers do I need in all honesty? Not 12 a year that's for sure. A page wasted teaching my granny how to suck oranges, sorry I mean how to go about selecting an army and period to game. Two articles on periods so close together, Ancients and Dark Ages, that I felt one could have been postponed and another period inserted instead. Good to see the often overlooked genre of naval gaming in there though. So overall I think a chance missed, and I wont be picking it up off the shelf again. I still think WSS is out in front,' theme' or no 'theme' in each issue, and if WI didn't have this stupid theme idea running through it every month too I'd pick it as being equal. |
Gazzola | 22 Apr 2013 2:36 a.m. PST |
Volleryfire I think your post (and others) have shown the difficulty all magazine editors must face. What to put in? But the size of the magazine means it is virtually impossible for any magazine to please all of its readers all of the time. They can only try. And of those that still exist in these trying times, suggest they must be doing something right. And from the other side, as a reader and wargamer, we can only look forward to finding them containing articles that particularly interest us, but perhaps not in every issue. It is something we have to accept I think. In short, I guess a magazine's very existence will depend on how much both the magazine and its readers give and take. But let's hope we are still discussing Wargaming magazines in six months and that those that still exist are still around. |
Volleyfire | 22 Apr 2013 5:17 a.m. PST |
Reading Henry's blog he mentioned Battle for Wargamers and he suggests it disappeared without trace, which is what he was aiming for not to happen to BG. I would dispute that to a certain degree, BfW was amalgamated with Military Modelling and then quietly disappeared over a period of time.I suppose by becoming Ed of MW Henry has ensured that that can't happen to BG, but I feel he has rather loaded the contents in his favour in an effort to stop this from happening. Time will tell whether it works or not, personally I just feel that whilst dropping the Sci Fi element is a good idea making the rest of the publication into BG with MW and not MW with BG as it seems to me might not work entirely in the long run. I know the mags can't be all things to all men, but perhaps instead of a yearly feedback questionnaire they should have a more frequent one, say 6 monthly? |
Marc the plastics fan | 22 Apr 2013 6:03 a.m. PST |
I think I must have read a different magazine to you VF, but each to their own of course. I enjoyed it – it was BG rebooted into a bigger magazine, with a better advertising base to support it. The articles were a good spread of type and period, with lots of good stuff to read throughout (even if I do not like Ancients, the read through was good). But then, I like stuff that includes flats on books, so it is good to see that sortof bravery in print. The modelling piece on the armoured car was well done – again, not for me, but some interesting ideas and execution. I do agree that the reviews section was a tad long, but maybe that is transition padding. But for me, the piece on wargames photography was worth its price of admission alone. I know there are specialist photo mags, but this was really simple for this luddite to follow. Finally though, I do hope we do not get too many articles showing us how to build an mdf kit building. I have found that series throws up the odd gem, but no more mdf kits please |
battleeditor | 22 Apr 2013 6:05 a.m. PST |
@Volleyfire As stated in my editorial, sci-fi has not "disappeared", only the separate Darker Horizon section. Non-historical material is being presented alongside the historical stuff. Just look at Neil Shuck's Forward Observer column, the Recce section and, of course, we had the Saladin for UNIT piece. Some issues may have more non-historical stuff, others will have less, in just the same ways as some issues may feature ancients heavily, another horse and musket and so on. The aim is to present the material in a way that means that neither audience is repelled, and might actually (even if secretly) find themselves reading and enjoying articles from 'the other camp'. Bluntly, feedback quetionnaires only give you an indication of what the people who could be bothered to fill in and return the questionnaire want – and the number who do so is often so small that to take decisions based on them would be a huge mistake, especially since those readers are often the most vocal in their opinions. Should they drown out the vast (and I do mean vast) but silent majority? And even if the returns were hugely positive, I wouldn't waste valuable space in the magazine on bragging rights. People such as yourself can make up your own minds whether you think the magazine is any good or not and whilst I naturally disagree with your conclusions, I wouldn't argue for a second that you're not right to express them. I get huge amounts of feedback online and via email and when I go to shows – and, most importantly, in the sales figures. I've not found people shy in telling me what they do or don't like. That's why I pay attention to forums like this and have a Facebook page for the magazine and Twitter account. Have no fear, I hear what people say, good and bad. But the fact is that if your try to please everyone every issue, you end up pleasing noone. Besides, as the editor of a hobby publication with an *extremely* limited contributor budget, I am at the mercy of that band of enthusiastic and dedicated wargamers who make the effort to put pen to paper abouot the subject matter they love most. My policy is NOT to dictate what I want people to write about – such articles often come out as dry as dust – but to convey their enthusiasm about whatever gets their wargaming juices flowing. this means the content is not always predictable but, as far as I'm concerned, that's also what makes it fun. As for your other comments, such as "the same layout every issue", I think that if you look at any regular publication, you'll see that they design a style and stick to it, whether it's MWBG, WI, WSS or, indeed, the 'old' MW or anything else you care to pick up off the shelves. If you don't happen to like the style, well, that's life. It is what it is, and went through at great deal of thought as a result of, funnily enough, listening to readers' feedback over a long period. And besides, why on earth would I want to design a magazine that looks like the opposition? I read and enjoy WI, WSS, Dadi e Piombo, Vae Victis and a huge number of other magazines. Each has their own, distinctive character and that's exactly as it should be. The 'late ancients' and 'dark ages' pieces were deliberately given space this issue because they feature two distinctively different rulesets, Dux Bellorum and Dux Britanniarum and I thought it was interesting to compare and contrast how they approached the same chunk of history. If you don't like 'teasers' (I call them Command Challenges out of deference to Charles Grant who, I think it's fair to say, pretty much 'owns' the name 'teasers'), well, that's a shame – I have so many individuals and clubs telling me that they find them really useful ideas for games, even translating them into different periods and genres at the club or with friends. But there you are, I'm the person Atlantic has appointed to edit and design the magazine, presumably because they think I have a reasonable idea of how to do the job, but the nature of the beast is that plenty of people are always going to disagree with what I do, whatever I do. C'est la vie. So, I'm of course disappointed that you're underwhelmed so far but magazines are like buses, there will be another one along in a minute, and perhaps – if you can be bothered to pick it up – you'll like the next one more. Either way, I hope that you find what you're looking for. Henry Miniature Wargames with Battlegames |
Gazzola | 22 Apr 2013 6:57 a.m. PST |
Good post Henry and I don't think anyone should consider even attempting to judge a magazine on just one issue. It is a bit like saying your football team is great or poor because they win or lose their first game of the season. Only time and contents will tell on how popular or not the new combined issue will be. |
20thmaine | 22 Apr 2013 8:07 a.m. PST |
@Gazzola – saved me a post. Need to give the mag' a few issues to see what the average coverage is like. @Volleyfire – my recollection is of the Modellers moaning for a couple of years through the letter's column until the wargaming bit carried forward from Battle finally went. Lot's of frothing at the mouth "put it all in the centre so I can rip it out and just throw it away" type letters. If MW had tried to be two mag's in one then there'd have been a fight about whether the BG or MW bits should be in the middle ! If the sales plummet then I guess it'll be judged to be too much BG and not enough MW and it'll tack back a bit. If the sales go up then it's working. My sub's in, so I'll await developments ! |
Ben Avery | 22 Apr 2013 2:40 p.m. PST |
As someone who's been buying MW since issue 7, at the grand old age of 11, I'm with Volleyfire on the feeling it's BG-loaded in the first issue. Nice to see some familiar contributors back, but there was a reason BG was going under until Atlantic bailed Henry out and I rarely bought a copy, apart from when it was trialled in WH Smiths and I thought I should give it another go. MW was due an update, but to be honest, I'm just not that interested in BG+, if that's Henry's intent. I'll just carry on with WS&S and the occasional WI that catches my eye. I enjoyed the Dux articles – I bought both rulesets recently so nice to see something to do with them. The photography article was nicely different and the sort of thing that does make you go back and look at old issues. Arthur's Little Wars game is something I could use at school, maybe even a Memoir variant (as I can't be faffed forking out for C&C: Napoleonics). The contributors are a bit of a mixed bag for me (I can do without top tips for getting your wargaming groove on) and I'll echo the comments about reviews. For all the comments about the cover and fonts I would say it's cleaner than either MW or BG, but still nothing striking to my eyes. I can't speak for the online versions, but if the changes do help with readability then fair enough. As for the 'with Battlegames' tag, I'm not a fan. I understand Henry wanting to keep some identity, but I'd rather see a single title on a magazine cover. It reminds me of the Victor comic mergers, where they absorbed others, before going back to the old title a few months down the line. Gazzola – I don't think it's unfair to pass initial comment on the changes. It's Henry's first edition and I'm sure it's a vehicle for his vision for MW, based on comments in podcasts, online and in print. I will indeed be buying a few more issues, but with the changes coming just as I'm debating the point of buying magazines full stop (I have hundreds of old copies when I want to sit and get inspiration rather than browse the web) I won't be buying just out of loyalty. |
Oudinot | 22 Apr 2013 3:45 p.m. PST |
Picked up a copy at Salute best issue of MW since no.48!! |
Gazzola | 22 Apr 2013 4:28 p.m. PST |
pmh1882 I've got quite a large collection of old mags myself, which I pull out now and again when I have the time, and very enjoyable it is too. However, I stick to my opinion that it is a little unfair to offer negative comments on the first issue of a magazine. For a start, the new combined magazine will, I imagine, be offering a variety of articles down the line, which will please and possibly disappoint some wargamers, perhaps pleasing those who might be somewhat disappointed now and disppointing those who are happy now, who knows? And who knows what ideas and innovations that might be introduced as time goes by? So a few issues down the line and I am sure we will all have a fairly good idea if we like or dislike the combined mag and why. |
Ben Avery | 22 Apr 2013 5:02 p.m. PST |
I'm sure I'll have more of an idea myself, a few issues down the line Gazzola. I just don't understand why it's not okay to offer a critique of the mag. Opening nights at the theatre are traditional for the critics to pass comment, even though shows do evolve. Henry's had time to think about it and if all we could offer for several issues was unqualified praise or say nothing (as per your suggestion) how is Henry going to get any useful feedback to make changes that I would personally prefer? I assume Henry's not a mind-reader so I've said what I enjoyed and also what I wasn't as fussed about. He's free to take note or not as the case may be, but has said he welcomes feedback. If the magazine stays in its current format I doubt I'll stick with it, if it does change somewhat I'll probably carry on buying. I don't expect him to change his mind based on a single post on a forum, but you seem set on challenging any negative criticism, even when it's mixed with praise. |
Volleyfire | 23 Apr 2013 4:03 a.m. PST |
Thank you for such a fluent and eloquent reply Henry, I can see why editing is your chosen vocation and not mine! I should possibly have expanded and explained a few of my 'moans' and quantified them with my reasoning, but I hate to drone on and write a long-winded post which people give up reading after the first paragraph. Yours however is so well written, and whilst I hadn't intended to ruffle feathers it's looking from the reply that you weren't entirely pleased. So my apologies, I can understand that this is a work in progress to some extent, and you've been 'through the Mill a bit' as they say lately with BG, so to have negative comments on something which is a labour of love on your part cannot be to palatable! I have to say you do fight your corner and put your point across succinctly and I agree with you on virtually everything you have to say in your defence. It did occur to me after posting that possibly the amalgamation of the two magazines was so quick that perhaps you didn't have a huge amount of content available to you to work with and you went with what was available at the time possibly hence so many features of BG, though I'm not being detrimental to BG here ? You say in your reply above that you are somewhat limited in that you can only put in what is submitted, limited budget and all that, and if there isn't much to choose from you have to go with what you've got. If there's one thing about replying to a magazine Editor, it certainly makes you go through your post to edit grammar, spelling, punctuation etc before pressing submit, if nothing else!! |
battleeditor | 23 Apr 2013 4:30 a.m. PST |
@Volleyfire That's a very kind response, thank you. I'm cringing because I just noticed a couple of typos in my post! :-D Henry |
thehawk | 23 Apr 2013 5:00 a.m. PST |
I feel that criticism is useful. For example, I downloaded the pdf version and wondered if it was my pc video card or eyesight. For example, the text on the map on page 42 is illegible. If Whirlwind had not mentioned a similar issue, I would still be in the dark. But I am sure that Henry will fix the problem. |
battleeditor | 23 Apr 2013 6:33 a.m. PST |
@thehawk I've contacted Exact editions about the quality of the PDF and they're looking into this right now. More news as I get it. Henry |
Gazzola | 23 Apr 2013 9:11 a.m. PST |
pmh1882 I'm not saying it is not okay to complain, I'm saying give the magazine and the editor a chance! It is, after all, only the first issue. And the difference with your example is that the theatre often put on dramas that are already successful and known to be a hit, plus the actors have rehearsed the play or whatever long before the opening night. On top of that, the contents of the drama usually stays the same throughout the continous performances. I can't see a magazine surviving for long if they kept including the same articles about the same topics, can you? But the editor is listening so any moans and complaints about the first edition will more than likely be noted and probably acted upon should they be continued with future issues. And it is going to be very interesting hearing what people think in a few months time. |
Ben Avery | 23 Apr 2013 11:13 a.m. PST |
Then I think we're talking at cross purposes Gazzola. My giving the editor a chance is buying the next few issues, at which point I'll make a decision. Yours appears to be only saying positives during that time, which I don't see helping, (from my own point of view). Please note though I used the term criticism rather than complain. I just don't see the point in sitting in silence on things I'm not fussed about, hoping Henry makes any changes I might prefer; why would he if he only hears how great it is? Maybe I should have specifically said new plays – where changes often do occur as a result of feedback. Henry's got broad enough shoulders for that I'm sure. Anyway, I agree it will be interesting to see how the new magazine develops. |
Keef44 | 24 Apr 2013 3:36 a.m. PST |
What surprised me most was how completely the Battlegames brand took over. 'Miniature Wargames with Battalegames'? 'Battlegames with Battlegames' would be more accurate. But this is hardly a criticism, as BG was by far the better of the 2 IMHO. But spare a thought for Andrew Hubback whose efforts over the past few years were resoundingly kicked into touch. The most interesting part of this thread is how diverse the preferences of potential readers are. To pick up on a few points: Recce – I'm glad it's been kept. There are plenty of opinions on products out there online, but properly considered and well written reviews are rare. And the monthly publication schedule will keep things more up to date. Command Challenge – an interesting one. A scenario idea or two is very much one of things I look for from a magazine. Steve Jones produced a well written and very entertaining battle report which I enjoyed reading, but there was not much on offer in this first Challenge in terms of scenario. Despite the back story, this was very much a case of 2 armies lined up opposite one another and off you go. I was definitely not teased. Photos – beautifully produced, but for my money too many tight close ups showing off the models, rather than illustrating the wargames being described. See Command Challenge, and also the article on Market Garden. Columnists – I like them. Someone like Neil Shuck has such a great overview of the hobby from his diverse interests, which supplement my own rather narrow view of what constitutes wargaming. A personal dislike was to see 3 pages wasted with a detailed report on putting together an MDF building. It comes with instructions for goodness sake! Overall I thought this was a great start, with a great selection of diverse and engaging articles. Fans of Battlegames can get their fix monthly rather than bi-monthly. And no one has mentioned the value for money aspect. BG – £4.95 GBP for 50 pages. MW+BG – £4.25 GBP for 75 pages. Long may it continue. Good luck with this Henry. |
battleeditor | 24 Apr 2013 4:58 a.m. PST |
@Keef44 Thanks for your considered comments. A technical correction: MWBG is actually 80pp cover to cover. All printed matter has an even number of pages that are multiples of 4, 8, 16 or (occasionally) 32, depending on the press they are printed on. Command Challenge: Steve Jones stepped in at the very last minute to plug a gap left through unforeseen circumstances. I thought he did a remarkable job. I too like overview photos of games in progress, but of course that relies on the contributor taking them – something for the umpteen updates I now need to add to the (new) Contributors' Guidelines! Henry |
ubercommando | 24 Apr 2013 5:16 a.m. PST |
I've mentioned this on the other MW topic but I thought the three columnists were my least favourite bits of the new look magazine. I'm not that interested in reading opinion columns, especially when it comes to specific games. Mr. Shuck's column degenerated into an anti-Flames of War rant which, if you like that game, would put you off. The way pre-relaunch MW and WSS do columns is to address gaming concepts, not pick on specific rules which is what I thought was wrong with both the forward observer column and the Thoughts From an Armchair one as well. |
Keef44 | 24 Apr 2013 5:32 a.m. PST |
Ubercommando – Neil's anti-FoW comments were only part of a varied 3 page column. I don't think 'degenerate' is the right word – columnists are supposed to be there to offer opinions, and these will sometimes be negative. I for one was pleased to see the corporate gates rattled a bit. FoW fans should take it on the chin, as I would if one of my favoured rule sets was criticised. Of course, my response is probably coloured by the fact that I agree with everything Neil said. |
freewargamesrules | 24 Apr 2013 8:17 a.m. PST |
I thoroughly enjoyed the new Miniature Wargames. The new design is very contemporary with nice readable fonts and its good to see high quality photographs have returned to MW. I think there are a good mix of articles and I'm with Henry on this one that I want a gaming magazine and not a history magazine. I have to disagree with Ubercommando about an anti FOW rant. Neil clearly states he does not like the rules but he gives reasons why this is. Personally I think his points are valid. If you are in the pro FOW camp then there is a separate magazine for your needs. As for the mix of articles, if you are not happy then please submit articles to Henry. I'm sure he will accept them with open arms. Finally, it was nice to get a free plug for my website from Conrad Kinch. Think I will have to subscribe now! |
ubercommando | 24 Apr 2013 11:10 a.m. PST |
Well, being Devil's Advocate here
who are these columnists? Why do their opinions carry weight? I think old MW and WSS did opinion columns better: Don't single out rules sets and stick to gaming concepts. This is what makes messers Priestly's and Clarke's pieces so good. Why steer clear of praising or damning rules? Well, once you do that you get the backs up of the readers who like those games. Is this what a magazine should be doing; dividing the readership? Frankly, Mr. Shuck trotted out some tired (and not very accurate) cliches about FoW; the type you get here at TMP. A columnist should be pitching their material above the kind of internet forum level of criticism. As for the Thoughts From An Armchair, again, what use is that kind of article; where a wargamer shares their thoughts on favourite rules
a lot of them out of print btw
without going into a lot of detail about why they're so good and what the readership can learn from them? It's a shame I found the 3 opinion columns poor because the wargaming articles themselves were of a high standard. |
arthur1815 | 24 Apr 2013 2:00 p.m. PST |
I tend to agree with ubercommando about some of the columns – I much prefer Richard Clarke's and Rick Priestley's pieces in WSS. Now if Henry could persuade them, or other rulewriters – Sam Mustafa springs to mind – to contribute similar columns to MWBG he would have a real winner! Zeus's recent reviews/analyses of rules in MW were also extremely interesting – and saved me from wasting a few quid on rules I would not have enjoyed! – so I hope that he will continue to appear in the new magazine. Regular columns/columnists risk becoming stale unless they can find interesting, entertaining and novel perspectives on the hobby. Mere listing of the writer's favourite rules, periods and figures, or descriptions of his recent purchases, contribute little to the contents of an otherwise excellent magazine. |
Gazzola | 25 Apr 2013 2:23 a.m. PST |
pmh1882 As can be seen by the posts, wargamers have different opinions and want different things from a magazine. But I did not want to sound too critical of your post (or others) and I might come over as positive about the new issue, but that would be because I hope it does well and remains around for a long time, rather than not do well and we end up losing yet another magazine. There are already too many nails in the wargaming coffin. And we both missed out the fact fact, concerning the theatre example, that theatre audiences are different each night and have been known to react differently to the same play. But my only real point was that it is Issue 1 and we should not judge too harshly because of that. And I guess future sales will tell if the editor and mag have it right or not. |
Volleyfire | 25 Apr 2013 3:20 a.m. PST |
I have to agree with ubercommando on most of what he says, though I haven't read Mr Siggins column yet so can't comment on it. I just wonder who is this Neil Shuck and why does he warrant a column? I don't tend to look too closely at personalities in this hobby and can only recite the names of those with high profiles and prolific output such as Messrs Clark, Preistly, Perrys etc. I have to agree with arthur1815 regarding WSS contributor columnists and their excellent style and presentation. I think the difference between a good column and a bad one in a wargaming magazine is for me the contrast between reading an article on the same subject in the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph, one raises my blood pressure and makes me emit steam and curses whilst the other informs me in a reasoned and balanced fashion which satisfies my interest and curiosity without causing me to reach for a stiff whisky and soda. |
battleeditor | 25 Apr 2013 4:36 a.m. PST |
@volleyfire @ubercommando One might as well ask who anyone is in the hobby – and likewise any columnist in a newspaper. They're the people who, despite being tired from their day (or night) jobs, sit down every month and write good copy to a deadline, managing to convey enthusiasm and find something to say when others are still staring at a blank screen. And they have opinions: sometimes you'll hate them, sometimes you'll love them. Neil Shuck has been running the extremely successful Meeples & Miniatures podcast for years, as well as hosting the View from the Veranda occasional podcast with me. That he is highly regarded in many quarters is substantiated by the thousands of people who listen to his podcasts and the sponsorship that his blog and webcasts attract. He has very catholic tastes and therefore represents the 'Everyman' of wargaming extremely well. He also knows more about what's coming along in the market and trends than anyone else I know. Conrad Kinch is also a popular blogger with his Joy and Forgetfulness page. He has a very much out of left field – and occasionally even downright eccentric – take on the hobby which many readers tell me they find refreshing. Mike Siggins – well, we all know Mike, and that's the point, a veteran hobbyist with a surprising range of talents who takes the long view. In this issue, he happened to muse on the rulesets he has tried over the years; next time, it will be something completely different. Reviews: over the years, both Andrew and I have wrestled with the balance in our respective publications. I picked up issue 359 and found that the Zeus column and other reviews combined came to 10 pages – precisely the same as FO + Recce in 361, and now a smaller proportion of the total because of having more pages. Traders send us stuff. We review it – although in fact, I could easily add another 5 pages of reviews per issue if I included everything. So an editor has to strike a balance between potentially annoying readers with too many reviews, or annoying advertisers by not including their stuff. On the whole, I think we get it about right, since we seem to be annoying everyone. Just bear in mind that a magazine is a living thing – whilst it has a kind of skeleton structure, it changes every month. Henry |
Volleyfire | 25 Apr 2013 11:11 a.m. PST |
@battleeditor You're starting to influence me already Henry judging by the way I've prefaced this sentence! Ah well I've heard of Meeples etc, just never had time to actually tune in so to speak, so Mr Shuck has passed me by. There are only so many hours in a day after all and it's difficult to cram everything in already without something to listen to as well. I really do need an 8 day week. Perhaps a small potted history of who has done what in the wargaming world above opinion columns and gaming articles contributed by various collective worthies might be handy? Even in fine print in the margin. Not everyone belongs to large clubs where some of the great and good hang out nor rubs shoulders with the same at shows, and there are always newcomers to the hobby (hopefully) so how about a 'Rogues Gallery' of mugshots, or line drawings a la WSS if they are painfully shy, in a future edition for ID purposes? :-) (I'm only half kidding here!) You can always pull it out and use it to keep children away from the fire if nothing else!! :-)))) Thanks for being so tolerant of my posts by the way. If I am coming over as rude and obnoxious I assure you it isn't intentional, the internet is wide open to misinterpretation. It's just
why do people who don't like FoW never miss an opportunity, any opportunity no matter what the context, to slag it off? I don't wish to buy WI simply because it panders towards FoW gamers of whom I may sometimes be one, I wish to read a mag, any mag but in this case your magazine, without someone gratuitously sticking the boot in. Sorry, but that's my bete noir at the moment. I think my annoyance stems in the main from the number of people on here who engage in the same practice, it's getting pretty tiresome and petty. Getting that out has relieved the build up of steam somewhat. |
battleeditor | 25 Apr 2013 2:05 p.m. PST |
@Volleyfire Sounds like peace is breaking out. ;-) It just so happens that I have just finished recording a 2 1/2 hour episode of View from the Veranda with Neil, so you can hear us whittering on very soon. See viewfromtheveranda.co.uk or iTunes for updates. It just so happens that Vietnam is one of Neil's fields of expertise (his other main historical draw is samurai). So his comments about the new FoW Tour of Duty are made from a position of knowledge, not ignorance. In fact, I ran several articles in BG lauding Battlefront for what they have brought to the hobby in terms of popularising WWII gaming and brining excellent products to market. Trouble is, like GW, they do suffer from polarised opinions, the 'Marmite' of historical gaming. I'll join your petition for an 8 day week. On second thoughts, better make it 9. Henry |
Whirlwind | 25 Apr 2013 8:40 p.m. PST |
It's just
why do people who don't like FoW never miss an opportunity, any opportunity no matter what the context, to slag it off? I don't wish to buy WI simply because it panders towards FoW gamers of whom I may sometimes be one, I wish to read a mag, any mag but in this case your magazine, without someone gratuitously sticking the boot in. Sorry, but that's my bete noir at the moment. I think my annoyance stems in the main from the number of people on here who engage in the same practice, it's getting pretty tiresome and petty. Getting that out has relieved the build up of steam somewhat. I think, from being a fan of Meeples & Miniatures and having listened to a lot of them, Neil's main problem is with the way the army lists create certain set-ups where resemblance to typical WW2 forces is pretty passing at best, and I guess he saw potential similar issues with FoW Tour of Duty. He is very consistent, the possibility of power gaming via army lists tends to draw his fire in most contexts (he had concerns over Bolt Action for similar reasons IIRC). He actually rarely talks about FoW – he is very good about not going on about stuff he doesn't feel he puts in the best light except where it seems unavoidable. But I've put enough words in his mouth
Regards |