"Why MWBG is a good magazine" Topic

@ubercommando – you're in luck, Spencer Smith are making the Jacklex figures again. I haven't heard anything bad about them either.

Spencer Smith have a good reputation – so you should be ok. (I bought some from whomever it was had them in production for ~6months in the 1990s, and I could have cried when they turned up – but that's a different story!)

'I think we're in the good times with the hobby.'

A Golden Age perhaps? I think we are certainly spoilt rotten what with vast choices scales, quality miniatures, terrain, scenery, hardback glossy rules, 3 glossy magazines, plastics resin and metal figures, internet forums,large paint ranges,all the different methods for basing figures with flocks and tufts, interesting bloggers, choices of quality professional figure painters, the varied products available in MDF nowadays etc etc. If you step back and survey the hobby as a whole compared with even a decade ago surely it is head and shoulders above anything available at that time. Gamers 10 or 20 years ago would have given anything to be faced with the choice we have now in everything I've mentioned above, I know I would have. Really I think sometimes we have lost sight of what we actually have, and should be more grateful sometimes for what is produced in our name, whether it be in print or metal.

Thanks for the reply Henry BTW.

I really enjoyed this last issue and if Mr Treadaway is going to be a regular then I may even subscribe.

Spencer Smith…that takes me back. Another of those companies that Practical Wargamer liked to mention.

I bought the latest WI the other day and lo and behold there was a two page opinion piece about why air and naval wargaming should be more popular, a preview of some quirky looking 17th century skirmish rules from Poland and a very personal F&IW article by a real enthusiast. Maybe new MW is rubbing off on the great corporate beast!

Uber – what issue was that? Last one I glanced through seemed to be all pics of Salute, so happy to browse again. Thanks

Thank you, all, for the positive comments. I'm biased. Obviously…

It's interesting, the comments about the Slammers "Vietnam to Nieu Friesland" article. As Henry intimated, what he asked for (and therefore what I did) was more of an explanation of how a game system was created, how the research was carried out, what inspired it: that sort of thing. The fact that it happened to be about the Slammers stuff I'd done rather than, say, UFO, Captain Scarlet, Cloudships of Mars or any other of the rule systems I'd worked on or adapted heavily over the years was, I think, simply because of the quite unusual historical/non-historical cross over nature of the background (essentially Dave Drake's personal input).

In an environment like a wargaming magazine, there is always going to be that tension between historical and non-historical styles and part of the conversation I had with Henry prior to my writing the article centered around an approach that better explored that dissonance.

As I've said many times before, my opinion is this: the moment we stray from actual historical facts, we are playing a non-historical wargame. So – when Napoleon wins the battle of Waterloo – that's a non-historical game. It's simply (in my opinion) a question of degrees.*

It is interesting that the (now) three dogs in the fight: WI, WSS and MWBG (to use the contractions) all have a different spin on what makes a non-historical wargame. WSS's latest issue has super heroes in it and yet – along with WI – has a firmly pronounced ‘historical only' approach nowadays. I'm glad to say that this was never Practical Wargamer's position (back in the day) and has never been the MW (or MWBG) position. I'm with (what I perceive to be) Henry's stance on this one: I believe that to ghettoise magazines when the vast majority of wargaming we do is non-historical to one degree or another, is simply insane.

My big interest has always been (from my days of writing [originally] for Military Modelling back in the early eighties) to show the commonality not the separation – hence the piece on (essentially) Drake's ‘Vietnam in Space'.

And – after all (and talking of which) – who doesn't like James Cameron's Aliens… ?

Seriously…

John T

* To paraphrase "we already know what you are, madam, we are simply haggling over the…" degree

Marc, Issue #309 July 2013. Its feature article is the new Rising Sun supplement for Flames of War but the other articles are diverse and interesting…dare I say, "folksy".

My Bad Uber, I glazed over with the Japanese FoW – may be good, but not my thing, so I moved swiftly on – as I often do with that mag.

Agree that the latest issue of MWBG is the best one so far – thought I'd give it a chance to settle down before throwing my hat in the ring.
First of the new issues was too much "BG" for my liking, second had ridiculously long opion pieces, this seems to have found a balance.
Thought it was good to see sci-fi mixed in with the other articles, rather than being consigned to a dark corner.

I may be in a minority but I think a letters page might be good and some Kevin Dallimore articles (you can never have enough eye candy or easy to follow tutorials) then Henry may have brought balance to the force.

So MWBG is nothing whatsoever to do with sexuality/gender identity politics, then?

Right……

And – after all (and talking of which) – who doesn't like James Cameron's Aliens… ?

Since you ask…..I really liked Alien, but didn't think much of Aliens. The Alien in Alien was super smart, but by Aliens they were just termites.

Alien3 is superb. Because it's just Alien all over again, in a different setting. And it has Pete Postlethwaite. And Brian Glover. "Wot's not to like, eh ? Eh ? Eeee..what's not to like ?"

Aliens V Predator – loathe.

Hi

I have bought the MW for the last 20 years every month and
the last couple of mags since the take over have been the worst ever and I am now going to stop buying it. On a comercial bases battlegames failed before and MW has been on the book shelf's of major retailers for over 20 years, if did not sell it would not have lasted that long.

Mags for me they have lost any potency for me over time.
Getting older most of us have seen it all before.
I feel they are not worth buying any more.
For me many years ago I bought them for the new product
adverts and reviews . A great set ups like Giders, Gaskins , Ray ,inspired me. Today looking at a 15mm FOW set up is a
bit of a downer.
Good luck with anyone running them but it does seem a real
up hill task in this new info age.

Mags for me have lost any potency for me over time.
Getting older most of us have seen it all before.
I feel they are not worth buying any more.
For me many years ago I bought them for the new product
adverts and reviews . A great set ups like Giders, Gaskins , Ray ,inspired me. Today looking at a 15mm FOW set up is a
bit of a downer.
Good luck with anyone running them but it does seem a real
up hill task in this new info age.

Mutineer, I am really surprised at your comments as I too have bought MW for many years and only kept doing so because of habit. I really felt that the quality dropped off years ago. To my mind the arrival of Henry has been a breath of fresh air which has rejuvenated the magazine.

What aspects of the magazine have you disliked so much?

If ever there was a thread that:

a) proves what a diverse bunch of folk we wargamers are, and…

b) demonstrates that you can't please all of the people all of the time

This one is it!

John T

PS – and – as if to prove my point, 20thMaine – Alien: loved it. Aliens: loved it for different reasons. Alien 3: liked it. Everything after that (including AvP): Tosh…

Just so, John.

Which is why each of the three magazines needs to have its own, individual style, and aim at its chosen audience within the hobby, rather than try to emulate each other.

John

"As Henry intimated, what he asked for (and therefore what I did) was …

…and part of the conversation I had with Henry prior to my writing the article …"

Were you commissioned to write that piece then, or did you approach Henry with you original idea and he then gave his editorial input?

I asked him to write it.

Ah ha – so you do commission pieces

Just kidding.

Now, having had a chance to read the latest WS&S I am getting confused by "opinion pieces", and especially why those in MWBG get singled out for vitriol in some cases, whereas those in WS&S seem immune to this. Is there a reason – is it style, or is it the personalities involved?

Just asking

There seems to be a fine line between what is considered a review, and what is considered to be an opinion piece these days.

Short answer: WSS opinion pieces don't run to 6 pages.

Long answer: It was just the length, the individual opinion being expressed and the tone of some of the opinion pieces. You could argue that one review section turned into an opinion piece but it was just a combination of things in about 4 articles over 3 issues of MWwBG that some readers, myself included, didn't like. However, there are those who did like them.

I have to agree with your comment there uber. To expand upon my rather brief point I think these days you have so much opinion out there in the form of podcasts, blogs, internet forums, not to mention magazines and websites that it seems everyone has a view, a review or an opinion about something or everything. Now that everyone has a keyboard and access to a somewhat captive audience they seem to feel obliged to sound off ( yes I know, pot kettle etc) whether it is informed critique, or just somewhat biased personal opinion. The phrase 'less is more' might be applied to some opinions some may feel. I think you would apply it to the 6 pages of opinion you took against so, uber.

Opinion pages in newspapers are often the most read and most popular.

I rather prefer an opinion piece – and yes, opinions are biased by nature – rather than a review describing the different poses in the latest box of 1/72 plastic napoleonics.

Phil – I would be happy to see ANY mention of 1/72 plastics in the mags.

Latest WSS shows no signs of anything different – completely overlooked the Zvezda Samurai in its figure availability review, as it does every issue.

Curse that discrimination!

Hi Marc,

Henry's thread (sorry Henry!) but you did mention WSS.

As an editor I'd LOVE to be able to get hold of Zvezda and for them to send samples, I have tried. The original article had an entry for Zvezda but as we didn't have any models to photograph, we had to drop that entry.

You might want to check out WSS 68, as I did manage to get hold of HaT… ;-)

Guy
Editor WSS Magazine

When it comes to Editing magazines, what they should and should not contain and how it is literally impossible to please everyone all of the time, I would say this:

Though I've never personally editied a professional magazine, I have, over the years, contributed to a number of them and worked quite closely with many Editors: Guy, Henry, Stuart Asquith (PW), Ken Jones (Mil Mod), Iain Dickie (MW), Andrew Hubback (MW), Neil Fawcett (Wargames Journal), Duncan Macfarlane (WI) and more. I've either been supplying articles, a column or interacting with them over Salute programme content from my stint with the PR for the show.

The Editing job, I can tell anyone, is never easy. Personal bias from columnists and contributors has to be very neatly balanced with practiclities like, simply, what an Editor is actually supplied with in any gven month, and balanced against the needs of advertisers and occasional 'specials' and show guides which have agendas of their own (as I know well!).

On top of that mix, because of the sort of argumentative, 'rules lawyers' we mostly are (by our very nature), if you put 10 wargamers together in a room (or a chat room) you'll get twenty different opinions. You'll certainly get a selection from me, anyhow!

So navigating the best mix for a magazine is an impossible task to get right. The best any editor can do (IMHO) is go with their gut instinct, see – in the end – what sells and then try their best. And this, from what I've observed over the years, is what they all seem to do.

I think that the magazines we have are a reflection of the Editor's personal gut and the content they are supplied with.

So – gut instinct aside – the bottom line,inevitably, from any editor (and, as I've only editied club magazines, you might say I'm talking out of my hat but I think the issue is infinitely scalable), is: if there is something missing from a magazine, consider writing it.

Editing nirvanna is a bulging in-tray of well written, thought provoking articles accompanied by good quality photos of nice models that have been well painted.

John T

So Henry, have you had the time to look over the stuff I sent you? Interested in anything or not to your taste. Let me know, I am finishing half a dozen more pieces in the same vein and if you don't like them I won't bother sending them to you.

Otto

Email me. I don't discuss individual submissions on forums.

Henry

Dont have your e-mail henry

henry at miniaturewargames dot co dot uk

I am getting confused by "opinion pieces", and especially why those in MWBG get singled out for vitriol in some cases, whereas those in WS&S seem immune to this. Is there a reason – is it style, or is it the personalities involved?

Vitriol ? it's ironic that having an opinion about an opinion piece can be seen as a bad thing.

In my case – I don't buy WSS, and I do buy Miniature Wargames (since Henry took over). So I comment on one and decline to comment on what I haven't seen.

@OSchmidt – Henry's Email : henry@henryhyde.co.uk

Beaten to it – but that's the email on the Atlantic Publishing website link on battleeditor's TMP profile.

Perhaps it's out of date ?

@Marc

That was just an hypothetical example – I wasn't focusing on anyone in particular nor did I have a particular article or magazine in mind.

I'm sorry if my remark was understood as being a direct criticism – it wasn't meant like that. I just wanted to state my own prefences ifor content.

Phil – I would be happy to see ANY mention of 1/72 plastics in the mags.

Practical Wargamer was very good at covering plastics.

Latest WSS shows no signs of anything different – completely overlooked the Zvezda Samurai in its figure availability review, as it does every issue.

And baby carts too, wheeled or on skis.

Baby carts – are they like soapboxes?

Phil – sorry, it was a general comment really, so nothing personal intended. Curse these impersonal forums – so hard to actually "chat" like real "face to face" people.

And John – agree wholeheartedly, but forums like this give at least us noisy types a chance to comment so that editors can see what some part of their community is thinking. All I did when I started this thread was say how great it was to see WARGAME articles in a wargames mag.

A Japanese baby cart:

All three of the main wargames mags have good and bad editions depending on your personal taste and interest.

At various times over the years and even just in 2013, I have vowed never to buy them just out of habit – wild horses couldn't get me to subscribe to any of them – but generally I still do (which kind of defeats the point).

Henry's first two MWBGs were excellent – the third was a stinker!

Scooped it up in a rush at Smiths along with the daily paper and when I got it home, outside of the new products and reviews section, for me it was a total waste of money.

Nothing of personal interest whatsoever!

Will I be looking out for the new edition this week? Absolutely!

My point – If you don't like a publication don't buy it but do read it first! :o)

I've just picked up issue 364 and I think it's rather good actually. I especially like the graphics Henry uses to illustrate battles and scenarios, such as the one for the initial troop dispositions at Castagnaro, very clear and crisp without too much clutter but all the essentials in place..
Now the picture from 1987 is something to behold! :-)