The true critique of the rules will be how many copies you sell and how many times you have to reprint / add supplements. If the rules are seen being played at shows / clubs they will garner their own following.

I'm biaised. I bought them because
a) the photographs are superb. They are wargamers eye candy
b) they are produced by a friend and I know the care and attention that has gone into them
c) they are professionally produced with great artwork
d) I've played the predecessor set and like them
e) I buy most rule sets anyway
f) I really like Napoleonics and had a hand in getting Barry interested in the period
g) The rules contain those quirks that I like in Napoleonics like Russian militia armed with pikes
h) Some of my own collection of figures appear

I'm sure they will be a big success over time. Well done Barry and Clarence.

To me David O'Brien put it to the point with his words on TMP:
"...that it felt and played like a Napoleonic battle..."
That the "realism" I expect from a rule set.

My copy arrived last week and first thing I did was browsing the pages and looking at all this great photographs. Also I like this used look of the pages.
Very professional work, congratulations.

Tellus,

Your link didn't work?

Ah, now it's up to date, thank you for the hint.

Hi barry,

Just finished my first read of the rules, and ive got to say well bloody done sir.

I was a General De Brigade player for a good many years, but this set makes so much more sense. The rules to me seem simple and elegant in execution and the presentation to me is just superb.

It inspires me to paint and game.

The idiots on TMP can go hang for all i care. It seems more that they are inclined to bash anything that looks like a take on the GW marketing approach, or anything that is not squeezed into the conventions of supposed "traditional" wargaming.

The new approaches to mechanisms is superb and i look forward to my 1st game after i have read the rules a few more times.

The only criticism is the spelling mistakes that exist within the presentation. But thats minor in reality.

Great work mate

The only criticism is the spelling mistakes that exist within the presentation. But thats minor in reality.

Where are the mistakes, Bob? We went through this monster what seemed like two dozen times... there still might be one or two, but I'd be surprised if it were pervasive!

Thanks for the rest, BTW, but I would like to know about mistakes if only so I can correct them if we go to reprint (I have my own list of errors, but spelling isn't among them yet).

Its not a huge number ill send you a pm.

Thanks...

Wargames Illustrated February 2010 has a review by Robert Townsend and Battlegames Jan/Feb 2010 has a review by Steve Gill. Both are very favorable reviews. My favorite line about Republic to Empire comes from Steve Gill's first sentence:

Many powerful wargaming beasts stomp out of Scotland, the Isengard to Nottingham's Mordor, and this beautiful set of Napoleonic rules is one of the most impressive yet
Very cool!

Hmmm... I have not seen any of these reviews... to be compared to something Tolkienesque is indeed very cool Clarence..

I'm off to paint a few more orcs!

Sharkey

They are both good reviews - I might have mentioned them here earlier, but I thought you lot got your mags weeks ahead of me...

A review posted recently by Jim O'Neill... and I DIDN'T EVEN PAY HIM!

http://www.geekdo.com/thread/521040/rep ... ards-view-

Gentlemen,

BoardGameGeek requires a certain style of writing to get things noticed (and plenty of pictures for the CCG players amongst its contributors) but otherwise, the sentiments are a true reflection of what I think about RtE.

Jim

Noted.

Don't worry Jim, we'll pay you in kind when it comes to special events at the next game. That's also a very good review of the rules you have posted.

Cheers
Dave

http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=221805