Is Mollinary's book ever going to be reprinted or is Dave Ryan just tugging our strings?

Hi DP,

Happy to report no strings being tugged at present.  An extra 100 copies, which had been caught up at the printers, have now been released, and should cover most of the backlog of orders. I am sure Richard Brown of Ken Trotman books, the publisher, has a number of these already allocated for Dave at Caliver.   Possibility of a further reprint over the winter still exists. 

Cheers,

Mollinary

Thanks for the info.

28mm is the worst scale I could imagine for this era. Unfortunatelly too many people think otherwise.. Especially here in Germany 10mm wargaming is still a niche of a niche (historical wargaming isn't remotely as popular as all this scifi GW stuff). Not to speak of the odd fact, that this particular conflict seems to enjoy more popularity in the UK than in Germany itself. I don't know a single person who is seriously collecting the period. Maybe I should set a good example in 2014 

If you need any help or advice J.S., feel free to ask.
Mollinary, Cameronian, Le Manchu, Hertsblue and many others are brilliant!

I'll gladly come back to this offer. I've always been a huge fan of the amazing 1866/1870 stuff shown in the Pendraken forum, but thus far I've always been occupied with other projects.

Ah, believe me, JS, you wouldn't be a wargamer if you weren't!

I'll second what Lemmy says, ie. always available for info 1866-1870 if you need it. Only other ranges that come anywhere near the Pendraken ones for this period are the 15mm QRF and Outpost Wargames ranges, but frankly I'd go with Pendraken every time for this period.

Finally got my hand on this issue of WI. Quite a downer.. I'm mean they present us 28mm games with age old foundry minitaures and a  (horrific) mix of WW1 and ACW minis (!!!) while not taking 10mm into consideration at all ("blala, there seems to be this this pendraken range. But hey, look at this 28mm figs the perrys sculpted 100 years ago"  ). Does Wargames Illustrated bear Pendraken a personan grudge? Otherweise I can't explain this.

QuoteI agree that WI is all about eye candy

Pendraken would have been eye candy here.. not those foundry pieces which look like artefacts from distant centuries.
Could have been an awsome issue of WI, but turned out as a missed chance.

Although I don't get WI it sounds a lot like this photo shot?

http://grimsbywargamessociety.webs.com/apps/photos/album?albumid=15250157

Quote from: J.S. on 21 December 2013, 01:58:23 AM
Does Wargames Illustrated bear Pendraken a personan grudge? Otherweise I can't explain this.

Not that I know of!  There was a little disagreement many years ago, when they backtracked on an agreement to publish a charity article, so we haven't advertised with them since.

Quote from: Shedman on 21 December 2013, 09:01:06 AM
Although I don't get WI it sounds a lot like this photo shot?

http://grimsbywargamessociety.webs.com/apps/photos/album?albumid=15250157

Not actually as good as these pictures. Not sure if I'd mentioned that I'd received Mollinary's book on 1866 now. As the RF&F system requires a very large number of figures I'm initially going to have a go using Principles of War, which only uses three bases per battalion.


EDIT: Quote fixed.

Quote from: Dour Puritan on 21 December 2013, 05:16:24 PM
Not actually as good as these pictures. Not sure if I'd mentioned that I'd received Mollinary's book on 1866 now. As the RF&F system requires a very large number of figures I'm initially going to have a go using Principles of War, which only uses three bases per battalion.


EDIT: Quote fixed.

.  Delighted the book has arrived now, but I should point out that is not just mine, but also John Drewienkiewicz' who is Holdfast on the forum. You are right about the figure numbers being large, after all so were the battles!   But it would be possible to put fewer figures per base, if you wanted to.  The big dilemma we had was that with any fewer bases per battalion we couldn't see an effective method for displaying the differences between the way the two armies fought. That said, it is a long time since I looked at Principles of War for this period, but three base a battalion doesn't seem to give you many options.

Mollinary

This is a stop gap until more figures can be put together. The POW system allows for four infantry formations pertinent to the period, namely regular formed (march column, one base behind another), regular loose order (three bases side by side to represent the loose firing line, ie. Prussians), regular close order (two bases side by side with the third base immediately behind which represents an attack column - so most Austrians and the Prussian reserves). There is also a skirmish formation, which is two bases forward, but one base width apart, with the third base front edge touching the two inside rear corners of the forward bases. I wouldn't envisage using this much in 1866.

Missed this one with all the offline-ness etc: I'll have to look out for it; I managed to get my pics in for consideration I think primarily because Paul Davies (who I game with locally) is a WI photographer...it's not what you know etc etc