Fire & Movement / Reviewed by Ralph Vickers I've always found reviews of wargames useful. They help to weed out the games I don't want to buy. But in many wargames magazines reviews are short because of space limitations, so you have to rely on the opinions of the reviewer. FIRE & MOVEMENT magazine, a recent arrival on the scene, has solved the space problem. This is a commercially printed 40 page bimonthly publication embellished with some of the finest graphics in wargamedom. The first issue of F&M opened with a battle report on Rand's Von Manstein: Battles for the Ukraine, 1941-44. This "super review" was a first impression of the game by two competent wargamers that filled six pages of the magazine. First there was a general description of the game and its components (including a tip off that to cut costs Rand had printed different units on both sides of the counters). There was a historical background section, then a move by move report on the first game played by the reviewers. This was followed by some critical commentary and some observations on how the reviewers might play the game better a second time. To round all this off there was a half page article by the designer himself and finally a page of rules queries. By then I really knew that this was a game I wanted to add to my collection. The first issue also carried another similar Battle Report on Chaco by Game Designers' Workshop . But the big feast was a 17 page layout on Avalon Hill's Tobruk by one of the hobby's most prolific and knowledgeable writers, Mark Saha. Mr. Saha took that game apart and told me how to play it (and also convinced me that while it's undoubtedly a great game it is too tactical for me). Again, it was very interesting at the end to read the designer's comments on the author's opinions. These were the main features of the first issue of F&M published in California last May. The only doubts I had in my mind after reading it from cover to cover was whether the enthusiastic editor, Rodger MacGowan, could maintain this level of excellence. Well, I've now read three issues of F&M cover to cover and I'm convinced that this magazine is here to stay. The second issue contained Battle Reports on GDW's Russo Japanese War and Strife's (a new and virtually unknown company) The Seige of Port Arthur; in depth pieces on AH's Wooden Ship & Iron Men and SPl's Chinese Farm and Golan. There was also a follow up on Tobruk, a Panzer Armee Afrika variant and a long interview with SPl's founder and chief designer, James Dunnigan, talking about everything under the wargaming sun. The third issue, too, breezed along at the same high level of professionalism: Battle Reports on GDW's 1815: The Waterloo Campaign, and Battleline's Air Force. There was also a sharply critical piece comparing GDW's SSN with SPl's Sixth Fleet (and the designers' commentaries for the defence), just to mention a few of the best bits. The only article I didn't like in the three issues was a Forum piece entitled The Wargamer as Nigger, but maybe I'm just not sufficiently preoccupied about why I happen to like playing wargames. However, the point is the F&M is corralling a stable full of the best writers and gamesters in the hobby (I understand that even the venerable Don Turnbull has accepted a contributing editorship) from both sides of the Atlantic, so there are bound to be a few whose opinions aren't a majority concensus. But diversity of opinion will keep the hobby lively. From the first three issues I would say it is clear that the people producing F&M are independent (because they've already covered games of just about everybody), fearless (because they haven't pulled their punches in their criticism) and they are obviously dedicated to producing a war gaming magazine of major importance. The arrival of magazines on the wargaming scene like F&M and Phoenix suggests to me that the hobby has entered a new era. From now on we will be better informed. The "we" I used there includes not only those who buy and play wargames but also the designers and publishers. There have been many fine articles and many sound ideas, given voice in the mimeographed press of wargamedom but I fear most of these were cries in the wilderness insofar as the designers and wargames publishers were concerned. But these people are reading F&M and Phoenix. And both of these magazines are open to anyone who has something interesting to say and can write it well. Finally the "communications gap" has been bridged.