A view on two magazines

IMun-HO its better than it was so far..

Giles Figures size comparison tables would make a great BG feature. Each issue take a period and just photograph the models consistently. Take ECW there are about 6-8 core 25/28mm ranges, take six figures from each for mean height.

Giles Figures size comparison tables would make a great BG feature. Each issue take a period and just photograph the models consistently. Take ECW there are about 6-8 core 25/28mm ranges, take six figures from each for mean height. Go on then.

Giles Figures size comparison tables would make a great BG feature. Each issue take a period and just photograph the models consistently. Take ECW there are about 6-8 core 25/28mm ranges, take six figures from each for mean height. Go on then. I'm fairly sure someone already did in the gallery section...

I'd rather have my toenails pulled out with pliers than read that article Timmo! It's a good on-line review idea for someone's Blog, but how much of an article could you get out of that? Rich

I'd rather have my toenails pulled out with pliers than read that article Timmo! It's a good on-line review idea for someone's Blog, but how much of an article could you get out of that? Rich I think it could work in the context of a dossier style magazine like WSS, but not in a general magazine like WI/BG.

"I think it could work in the context of a dossier style magazine like WSS, but not in a general magazine like WI/BG." What, puilling out my toe nails? P.S. how do I do the spiffy quote thing you lot do, with the light coloured box?

"I think it could work in the context of a dossier style magazine like WSS, but not in a general magazine like WI/BG." What, puilling out my toe nails? P.S. how do I do the spiffy quote thing you lot do, with the light coloured box? What like this? Top right in posting above hit 'quote'.

Use the 'quote' button in the upper right corner of the text box.

Use the 'quote' button in the upper right corner of the text box. What, like this?

Use the 'quote' button in the upper right corner of the text box. What, like this? Hmm, odd. It worked when i quoted you, but not when you wrote it. Have to ask Eccles or the mouse.

I would like to see a magaziner that actually gives stuff a proper review, WI gives everything a glowing review, which makes it hard to know what is actually good, they once gave something rubbish (I forget what) a good review so how do I know that their good reviews are worth anything? The reviews are printed at the discretion of the editor. We have reviewed things in the past, sometimes with negative comments where we didn't like them. The negative reviews usually didn't get printed (usually didn't, but some were printed), generally because the editor didn't want to offend an advertiser. But the negative reviews were given to the maker, whether printed or not, because we generally saw them later. On the other hand, much review material tends to be new products, and is often reviewed by people who actually like the stuff they are getting to review.

I'd rather have my toenails pulled out with pliers than read that article Timmo! It's a good on-line review idea for someone's Blog, but how much of an article could you get out of that? Rich Rich I don't think there's a written article as such in it at all but there's its a single photo feature page. I dunno, 48 little boxes of figures and a summary table perhaps with a paragraph or two about a few thoughts on the figures no more than that though. Alas I'm not the one to go an buy the stack of figures needed to do the thing. If somebody sent me the samples I do it but I reckon they may need to be maimed in the process. Often you see figures photographed against a ruler that's too far away to be dead accurate. I have recently photographed two Bicorne accurately and I'll stick them up in gallery soon and they weren't damaged in the process as they fitted to the ruler easily enough. Enough already.

I would like to see a magaziner that actually gives stuff a proper review, WI gives everything a glowing review, which makes it hard to know what is actually good, they once gave something rubbish (I forget what) a good review so how do I know that their good reviews are worth anything? The reviews are printed at the discretion of the editor. We have reviewed things in the past, sometimes with negative comments where we didn't like them. The negative reviews usually didn't get printed (usually didn't, but some were printed), generally because the editor didn't want to offend an advertiser. But the negative reviews were given to the maker, whether printed or not, because we generally saw them later. On the other hand, much review material tends to be new products, and is often reviewed by people who actually like the stuff they are getting to review. I had assumed it was something of that nature but I still think its pretty week, to be honest I think Giles has it right, scarp reviews, I would replace them with a large news section, showing whats out but limiting the commentary.

I think Timmo means something like this forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=3079" target="_blank">http://wdlovesme.19.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=3079 , only done properly! Personally I think such comparisons are probably better done on the internet, where such reviews can be posted promptly eg the wargames@nordelia blog site (I'll post the proper link later) which is graduallly working it's way through the 15mm WWII ranges as side by side comparisons. There's always the issue of subjectivity in any review, which is why I try to include at least a few scaled photographs to allow people to judge for themselves. Actually any photo review of figures should include a ruler in the shot IMHO.

View Full Version: A view on two magazines