Help support TMP


"Miniature Wargames is in the shops" Topic


71 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Magazines and Periodicals Message Board



3,310 hits since 19 Apr 2013
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 

Whirlwind25 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

ubercommando Inactive Member26 Apr 2013 5:43 a.m. PST

Mr. Shuck gave a negative review of Tour of Duty and his column is about reviews so that didn't bother me as much. It was almost wholly about the accuracy, or lack of it in his opinion, and not much else so reading it felt less like reading a review and more like reading a personal opinion on a specific subject. It's what happened next, the last part of his column, that got my back up where all pretense at reviewing or looking at titles new on the market went away and we got a pointed criticism of FoW which included some cliches (hub to hub tanks) which have been shown to be wrong or at least greatly exaggerated.

Like I said, this is the problem where a columnist goes after a single game system. I've been reading wargaming periodicals for many years now and the best articles avoid rules bashing and concentrate on concepts that apply to many games.

louislouis Inactive Member27 Apr 2013 10:51 a.m. PST

Is "Forward Observer" really about reviews? I thought it is only about what is new in the tabletop world, the reviews are "Recce". So Mr Shuck writes down his opinion, which he is doing in an entertaining and informative way imho.
btw nothing wrong with tank "car parks" imho, Fow works, if you like it or not

cheers

Marshal Mark29 Apr 2013 9:45 a.m. PST

Picked this up at the weekend and read through most of it. An enjoyable enough read on the whole, but it left me a bit underwhelmed. It is Battlegames still, and I think I was expecting, or at least hoping for, something more. The two articles about playing with toy soldiers were very "old school" and really did confirm that this has hardly changed from Battlegames.
The Dux Bellorum article was a bit pointless IMO. It was titled "Command Challenge" and these articles are normally about interesting and challenging scenarios. However, this was simply a straight up equal points battle, so not particularly inspiring or helpful.
I liked Neil Shuck's column and the article on digital photography of miniatures. However, I won't be subscribing and probably won't buy it again unless I'm really stuck for reading material.

Volleyfire03 Jun 2013 1:11 p.m. PST

Although I've been too busy working to read much in depth in issue 2 thus far, from what I've actually looked at and read it's better than the first issue of BG+MW and I'm warming to it. I still think WSS is the one out in front at the moment, but you've come up on the rails and nipped past WI into 2nd place Henry in my estimation. Keep up the good work! Nifty T shirt you were modelling at Partizan BTW.

Volleyfire04 Jun 2013 2:56 a.m. PST

Although judging by the picture taken at Salute it looks even better when modelled by attractive young ladies!! ;-)

ubercommando Inactive Member04 Jun 2013 9:16 a.m. PST

Another part of Salute I managed to miss this year!

ubercommando Inactive Member05 Jun 2013 4:40 a.m. PST

I've just finished reading the second issue of MW w/ BG. Like last time, the actual wargaming articles and scenarios are really good and get the balance between telling the history and providing wargaming options just right. The modelling and painting articles were good, although I wanted a bit more information on why a drill is needed for painting pikemen.

However, like the last issue, the opinion pieces left me cold. Two six page articles on issues that, to me, didn't warrant that much space. I felt they could have been much better and to the point if they were limited to two pages. This is an area where WSS wins out; their opinion pieces are short and very to the point.

So a 7/10 for this issue.

Volleyfire05 Jun 2013 9:41 a.m. PST

Have to agree with ubercommando actually on his comments re the 6 page opinion pieces, I tried reading them both and almost went to sleep. I agree WSS do this sort of thing more concisely and all the better for that. We seem to be having a lot of articles lately which appear to be rather 'deep' to me examining why we either wargame as a hobby, or simply paint figures, or do both. It's all getting far too serious for me. I'd much rather have 12 pages of 'fluff' to look at than wade through a lot of whys and wherefores and pros and cons. In fact if Henry wishes to adorn every few pages with another picture of those two nice ladies modelling his T shirts that's fine with me!!
Remainder of the mag fine though, and Mr Shuck managed to stay away from FOW.

battleeditor Sponsoring Member of TMP05 Jun 2013 2:03 p.m. PST

@ubercommando and @Volleyfire

Well, sorry you didn't like those two pieces, but I've had plenty of people tell me the opposite.

As I've said before, magazines are like buses, there will be another one along in a minute (it certainly feels that way to me, says he frantically putting 363 together, on the presses on Friday) that may be more to your liking.

But the fact is that there wiil always be, from time to time, articles like those, because I, and it seems many of our readers, *want* that kind of 'deeper' piece about wargaming in the magazine occasionally. Rather that than 10 pages of history with a wargaming paragraph tagged at the end.

Henry

Volleyfire05 Jun 2013 3:31 p.m. PST

Oh no Henry, definitely don't want 10 pages of history with a wargaming paragraph stuck on the end almost as an afterthought.Just something with some pretty pictures and not too taxing on the old brain cells after another long day.
What is nice to see and should be encouraged more is OOB in articles which give the stats for playing the forces using different rulesets saving us having to spend hours figuring out our own (or not to be honest as it's too much headache.)

Ben Avery Inactive Member05 Jun 2013 4:30 p.m. PST

Henry, I'm pretty sure there's some middle ground between 10 page history articles (and I don't recall many of those recently) and 6 page navel-gazing articles (which seemed to have very little for the reader who slogged through them to take away). And on that point it's getting a little tiresome to keep referring to history articles the dig in the Salute article about the work of the last editor but one seemed unnecessary.

I do think you need to edit some of these contributions down and I'm not sure immediately suggesting that people passing comment on the early editions should go elsewehere sends a good message (unless you're suggesting we just wait for an issue we do like). You make use of the web a lot it seems, but apparently don't take criticism well.

Back to the magazine, other than those three articles, I generally enjoyed the rest, although Arthur Harman's seemed a little 'meh' this time I liked his last one mind. Good to see a reduction in columnists maybe a rota for them now there are monthly deadlines might be good. The Recce disclaimer seems a little overblown and could stop halfway for me. Once question are we going to have 2 pages devoted to the Battlegames appeal every issue? I don't think it's necessary to have such regular updates and quarterly updates at best would be appreciated. I understand your personal interest in this charity, but between the posts on here and the info in the mag it feels like I'm being beaten over the head with it.

Given that a number of games seem to be flavour of the month at the mo SAGA, Bolt Action and steampunk/VBCW stuff (these last aren't to my taste, but seem to be doing well), how about more scenarios? I appreciated the Market Garden and Roman Civil War ones in your first issue.

Ben Avery Inactive Member05 Jun 2013 4:35 p.m. PST

p.s. I like the WI links to resources to download on the website and the general layout and resources of the WS&S one. Maybe get Atlantic to spruce up the MW one? It looks a little dated…(and why do you have to have a train in the background?)

TamsinP06 Jun 2013 1:15 p.m. PST

Well, even if there's no glowing praise for it, at least nobody has slagged off my article as a waste of space! grin

Marc the plastics fan Inactive Member07 Jun 2013 5:28 a.m. PST

That Tamsin piece was a waste of space grin

Ok, some thoughts:

1) WSS seems to be getting better all the time, and definitey have the lead in adverts and glossy ones at that. I hope Henry that you can attract some of these over, as ads are always good (to see what is coming)
2) Love the modelling articles – I know they are on the web (yawn) but it is great to see how others are doing it – and when they link to their sites it is even better, as I get to find sites I was not aware of
3) Good to see different scales being shown
4) The eye candy is definitely much better than the old WI days, so well done. But can you also try to get some "wide" shots in – I like the close ups, but nothing beats the "big picture" sometimes
5) I think I agree with the view that the opinion pieces are a tad overlong – I would much prefer more articles, maps and scenarios please
6) Same with Combat Stress – again, they have a website of their own, so I am happy for you to run an update, but maybe it could be smaller

So looking forward to the next – I think this was an improvement on the first, so good to see and hope that continues.

ubercommando Inactive Member07 Jun 2013 8:01 a.m. PST

Tamsin, I enjoyed your article but I'm still in the dark about why you need a drill to prep 15mm pikemen.

TamsinP08 Jun 2013 9:12 a.m. PST

@ Marc – grin

@ ubercommando – thanks! The hands aren't cast open (except for a couple of the "officer" figures), so need to be drilled to accept the wire pikes

Keef44 Inactive Member09 Jun 2013 2:26 p.m. PST

A post relevant to this thread is on my blog. Hope it may be of interest – comments most welcome.

link

Marc the plastics fan Inactive Member10 Jun 2013 8:03 a.m. PST

Oh Keef – you are in for it now from the painters…

But excellent views – and I say that as they mirror mine to a large extent so they must be good grin

And so glad Tamsin that you got that – I was expecting a wave of vitriol from those to whom internet humour is not an option. And yes, I liked your piece – hopefully now you have been bitten by the publishing bug you will take photos of magazine standard, but that aside it was an enjoyable article that tied in neatly to Tim's article lamenting an over-obsession with painting too much detail – it looks like you got it right in terms of the balance between detail and numbers. What's next?

TamsinP10 Jun 2013 1:10 p.m. PST

@ Keef44 – I've left a comment on your blog grin

Keef44 Inactive Member11 Jun 2013 8:55 a.m. PST

Thanks for your measured and informative comment Tamsin – it compares favourably with my rantings!

Marc the plastics fan Inactive Member12 Jun 2013 3:14 a.m. PST

And Keef – thanks for the link to the online magazines – excellent reading material now added to my favourites. Some of our published magazines would do well to take a gander at these and try to capture some of the flavour and content.

Pages: 1 2 

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.