Henry says on his blog, "If you actually look at the articles published in the last 33 issues of Battlegames, the number of ‘old school’ articles is actually very few – but I refuse to apologise for publishing them, as ‘old school’ has seen a resurgence in popularity in recent years and is a perfectly valid aspect of the hobby. I launched Battlegames because the hobby magazines at the time were ignoring this type of gaming completely, and I’m proud to have given it a voice. Every month, I shall be putting together the magazine that I want to read – and my tastes are very wide indeed. It’s a HUGE mistake to think I only play Grantian/Featherstonian games; I don’t, as will be shown by my book coming out later this year; and it’s also erroneous to think that 18th century = ‘old school’. Is Black Powder ‘old school’? Or Maurice? Or General de Brigade/Kriegskunst? If, by ‘old school’, you mean “fun”, then sure, I’m guilty as charged. My only criterion is quality – if an article is of the right quality, regardless of the subject matter, it goes in. Didn’t you notice that I even wrote a fantasy article myself for BG33? Or that Ashley Pollard has started reviewing sci-fi for the mag? What I will be insisting on is that the primary focus is on the game and the hobby, in all its many and varied forms, and I shall be communicating this to contributors."Now for me a couple of points emerge here 1/. Surely the magazine should be what the readership want not the editor- this was Andrew Hubbacks strength I always felt. - After all I wouldn't expect a magazine just to cater for me or even merely my tastes- which are at least as wide as Mr Hydes- to which my blog bears witness. I can see his point in trying to make that clear though however much I found the emphasis on "I" a bit disconcerting for a mainstream magazine. but what really makes my heart sink is the use of the word "fun" that and his listing of rulesets- somehow as if those two go together- though that is probably not his point and I'll own to just being picky here.. The implication that "fun" is only to be had by OFW is obviously false but not to the point . Now previously almost everytime some chap mentions "fun" in this context the net result is lightweight gamsey crap with the intellectual content of a primary school singalong- indeed the wheels on the bus are at least going round and round !!
What I will be insisting on is that the primary focus is on the game and the hobby, in all its many and varied forms, and I shall be communicating this to contributors."That statement is also - for me -a bit worrying -0 these days "the Game" tends to Mean -"another scenario for a ruleset I don't own or one that will cost me 30 quid to buy " Finding many possibly most rulesets to be in some form or another twaddle to a greater or lesser extentany mag that has a heavy emphasis on rules is going to bore me witless. Mind you there are those I know who view rules as things to read in bed... or even those who will discuss rules ad nauseam- Whatever blows your skirt up chaps- I'm aware that I can do that with certain historical subjects but equally that I'm not primarily - a "gamer" So despite my continued trepidation we'll wait and see. Afterall I mainly deal with the advertising chaps personally anyhow and I don't HAVE to read ther bits I don't like. I simply hope that the new MW will cater for as wide a potential readership as its previous incarnation