"Miniature Wargames 403 has arrived" Topic

and it really is MW again – the "with Battlegames" has been dropped. Well, that makes sense.

And…complete revamp. It looks…very different from MWwBG. First thoughts are – in any given article picture count up, word count down. And there's a 16page SF/F section in the middle – I can see why this has been done as it offers the option to "pull out and throw away" to those who really can't abide the sight of an orc. Only it doesn't really, as they'd need to cut out most of the adverts as well. And, personally, I don't like pandering to that kind of attitude – I mean fantasy wargaming has been a part of the hobby for so long that only real wargaming veterans can remember the time before Minifgs Mythical Earth figures. I certainly can't. It just seems as silly as putting the fantasy articles spread through the magazine and having a "pull out and throw away Napoleonics section".

Still…not the most important thing in the world really.

Going to have a proper read this weekend.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts, especially how it compares to the previous edition.

Hmmm…. I am prepared to give it a chance (especially as I have an unexpired subscription with months to run!). I have to say that I found the layout a bit "all over the place" with lots of small boxes and side bits. Liked the much shorter editorial. On the whole I didn't find it as interesting as usual…. don't know why.

I didn't care much for the 're-styling' and agree that the picture count seems to have gone up. The article on B2B gaming is a prime example: although the author makes reference to putting a Tiger tank on the British player's display to reflect the tendency to regard any German AFV as a Tiger, that hardly warranted a half page colour photograph of a model tank!
But, like parrskool, I have an unexpired subscription so I'll wait and see…

Nothing of interest in it for me – I play Dark Ages thru AWI plus 20mm WW2.

Articles seem mostly to be essay style e.g. navel gazing, advertorial and the old here's some history with some ideas for wargaming tacked on the end.

The sci-fi pages are mostly about products aimed at teenager/young adult market. My view is that it is gaming with toys, not wargaming. But even warhammer is talked about nowadays as having always been "wargaming".

Six pages on how to paint tiny sci-fi tanks appears in addition to the sci-fi section.

The layout is a bit of a dog's breakfast – similar to a cheap computer console games magazine. Sci-fi seems to dominate.

Apologies if I sound negative but the quality isn't there (much like my football team). Of the 3 mags, this one is the weakest if adult wargaming is your hobby and you still enjoy reading your old MWAN's.

if adult wargaming is your hobby and you still enjoy reading your old MWAN's.

I've been enjoying some old MWANs purchased from WGV recently.

Thanks for the feedback all. Shame they went that direction.

Nothing of interest in it for me – I play Dark Ages thru AWI plus 20mm WW2.

Not even the article on back-to-back wargaming?

Six pages on how to paint tiny sci-fi tanks appears in addition to the sci-fi section.

Surely a similar technique could be used on historical tanks?

I shall withhold my opinion until I've read the magazine, and I shall be giving it several issues to allow things to settle, but that cover is typographically a dogs breakfast.

However, my good friend John probably had no say in how the magazine will look.

It's also a shame that the one person who IMNSHO has the SF&F street cred to choose great SF&F wargaming articles is not editing the SF&F section.

Does it have the same Selection of contriboters as mwbg?

The back to back article is just a filler – 2 pages of inconsequential waffle. Did you notice the index says it's an article about the eastern front yet talks about the British and lorried infantry? And make sure the umpire is fit. Valuable advice indeed.

As for 6 pages on a technique to paint toy tanks I prefer the techniques in the armour modelling magazines. One advantage is that you get an historically believable result.

I think the Crete article says May 2016 is in the future. Not sure about that.

The back to back article is just a filler – 2 pages of inconsequential waffle.

You've obviously never tried playing a back-to-back wargame …

Does it have the same Selection of contriboters as mwbg?

Not entirely.

Did you notice the index says it's an article about the eastern front yet talks about the British

The reference to the Britiah was just an example of how you can use other models rather than what they actually are and refers to the idea (true or not) that the Brtish thought that every German tank was a Tiger …

and lorried infantry?

Didn't the Germans use lorries on the Russian front?

Had a quick look in my local WH Smith's today, appeared to look better than previous MWwBG of late. In fact I almost bought a copy!

(I stopped buying Wargames mags a couple of years ago)

Don't really like the new layout, as i understand it was designed in-house by Warners (whilst former editor Henry was a graphic designer).

I thought it was a weak issue but that may be due to the available content.

I also thought the editing of the articles was sub par, but hopefully that will come with more practice and experience.

I will let my subscription run it's course and then re-evaluate.

It's good to remember that this is only the first issue in the new format under John T's editorship.

The visual style has changed but the long running features are still there, the articles cover mostly the same ground but this time the fantasy and sci-fi part is in its own section. Plus la change….

Just to address some points raised by people here:

"navel gazing articles…" and this differs from the last few years of MW w/BG how? The magazine under Henry's editorship featured a great many articles from wargamers offering their advice, perspective and how they do things. Very early on in Henry's stewardship a lot of articles fell into the category of "DO THINGS MY WAY!" which calmed down after a few issues. As I have a "wargaming my way" article nearly finished, I won't call for the column's deletion yet!

Content: You can only really judge the trends on that after 3 issues. After that, you can detect a pattern.

Uber. You may be right but sadly I thought it was a mess. From the front cover onwards. Very untidy presentation, typos, poor photos. The articles were ok but i will not be sticking around to see it develop. Maybe I'll revisit it from time to time in Smiths but it is not for me

YMMV

There were certainly a few more typos than I'm happy with – this first issue (for me) was a bit of a rush (as you can probably imagine).

I'm not sure what is meant by "poor photos". Some are contributors shots which – by definition – are… well, what they are: they inevitably vary a little based on the skill set of the author/photographer.

The sci-fi pages are mostly about products
aimed at teenager/young adult market. My view is that it is gaming with toys, not wargaming. But even warhammer is talked about nowadays as having always been "wargaming".

Gosh I genuinely don't know what to say about that… my experience – as a man in his mid fifties who regularly attends several wargames clubs and lots of shows where thousands of people – often of my sort of age bracket – play both historical AND non-historical games on a very regular basis… all I can say is that my experience over the last four decades obviously does not match some others.

However, I do believe that the mix of articles in issue 403 is a good reflection of day-to-day wargaming, in the UK at least.

Go along to Salute (or the SELWG show, or Colours to name just three) and tell me I'm wrong…

John T

MW 403 has been added to the growing index of miniature wargaming magazines:

link

As with all magazines, it's hard to judge from a single issue. You have to look at several issues in a row and see whether the magazine on average appeals to you.

Of course the tone and lay-out is different – as can be expected when a new editor is at the helm.

Personally, I liked the SF/F section, although I am primarily a historical gamer these days. But it keeps me connected to this genre of wargaming without having to read all sorts of fan blogs ;-)

Yes, the tone and layout should be different. And often, different is perceived as "not as good" because a person has the old image in their mind as "best".

But that is why it is so important to get it right first time – you only get one shot at a first impression.

So I wish John well – his view and mine clearly aren't going to overlap, which is fine, and a it should be. Henry's style suited me, whereas John's doesn't (yet). Maybe it will grow on me, but until then I will save my money and browse in Smiths.

And it is not just whether it is sci-fi or not, for me the "look" is an important part of my enjoyment, and I found the layout poor, crowded and messy, with some sections (a side bar in particular) appearing to be in a small font. All of these factors detracted from my enjoyment of my "usual" mag, sufficient for it to no longer be on my list of "regular buys" anymore.

For those readers who still enjoy it – excellent. Sadly, that list no longer includes me.

Marc

IMHO, the format looks refreshingly modern.

For me, I like occasional images to intrude partially into columns. It breaks up the 'blockiness' type of design we're used to.

I don't like the white text on black, which I find tedious to read. Colored backgrounds other than a pale, lighter color -- paired with small sans serif fonts -- defeat my aging eyes, so any layout that keeps the contrast between black text and background color high is better for me.

I'm more a fan of serif fonts than sans serif, but understand the graphical appeal of the sans serif font.

I prefer two full columns rather than three, but that's me. I still read a newspaper with six columns. :)

Granted, these may not be your preferences. Any revamp needs a few issues to find a balance between what we liked graphically before and what we want in the future.

To me, it's a good first step. The content may also need a few issues to shake out, but quick read finds many of the same columns and article types as before.

Having a good look over it now, the design is all over the place. Some articles are two columns, others are three columns, every article title has a different font type and size. Looks like there were 5 or 6 different people involved in the layout all doing different things!

Personally I think it's an improvement. It looks more modern and I'm not fussed how many columns there are to a page, what difference does it make provided the article is interesting? As for the cover well this eeems to be the modern way, and it's certainly got less on it than most Women's mags or TV entertainment ones, you'd be hard pressed to even see the elephant if it was one of those publications. I couldn't care less if a Tiger tank picture takes up half a page, is it reducing the amount of writing in the article by doing so? The photos look fine, they've certainly got better over the years, I mean about 20 years ago they made me shudder looking at the quality of the painting on display. I think some people are being a bit too pedantic given that it is a first issue under a new ed, and there have obviously been instructions passed down from Warner Towers about how the owners want it to look and feel. I feel it needs a few issues under the belt before judgement is reached.