The wrath of Miniature Wargames

[barr7430]

I am told that R2E has incurred the wrath of the mighty Miniature Wargames and its top reviewer Bruce Macfarlane. Oh dear

I have no idea what I have done personally to displease this chap who apparently has described my little love child as a Frankenstein. I wonder how many games of R2E the reviewer played? Obviously a huge number because he seems to have read and dismissed most of the first 30 pages according to those who have seen it.


Regretably I am unlikely to read the review as I never buy that tired little mag and haven't done since the 'good' Mr Macfarlane ceased to edit it. My loss I am certain.

Anyway, I'll go a slash my wrists now and have a Greta Garbo moment.

I do hope the good chap's public don't follow his wisdom and opinions too slavishily or I won't be able to feed my family in the near future

[Captain Chook]

The cad! Sounds like the sort of chap in need of a good proctopsychologist!

Can we still tar and feather people these days?

[barr7430]

I have no idea... but maybe David Cameron will reinstate the death penalty for minor offences

[msk]

I shall have a mooch at a copy in the local W H Smiths and report back.

[CoffinDodger]

Barry,

I can't honestly see you taking umbrage with the great Bruce McF. I have always known him to be a perfectly balanced person...

...with a chip on each shoulder.

Jim

[msk]

OK, back from W H Smith now where I only had time for a brief scan of the article in question, so my observations should be viewed as being of limited accuracy.

There is indeed a review article by Bruce and a co-author. The article covers four rulesets - Lasalle, Black Powder, Napoleon and RtoE. It is critical of RtoE and in some places the phrasing is rather harsh. However, this criticism pretty much amounts to the type that we've seen elsewhere already - PMT, springs to mind - and centres around a perception that the rules are complex, hard to learn and time consuming. Those of us with some experience (however limited in my case) know these perceptions to be false.

Picking up Barry's question about how many games of RtoE the reviewers played - well, given that one playtest game is described for each ruleset, I think the answer must be precisely one game of RtoE. And that was played on a 4ft x 4ft table according to the article.

The impression I get from scanning the article (and it's fair criticism that I have indeed only had time to scan it) is that the authors have an in-built partiality towards a particular type of ruleset and thus are inclined to be critical of rulesets that do not concur with that pre-existing viewpoint.

If I could be bothered, I'd buy a copy of the magazine, assess the article in detail and write a letter to the editor. But I doubt I can be bothered

[obriendavid]

If I could be bothered, I'd buy a copy of the magazine, assess the article in detail and write a letter to the editor. But I doubt I can be bothered

I was the same Martin, I had a rough look at their review well basically their conclusions but there was nothing in the magazine so didn't buy it.

One of their main complaints in their conclusion seemed to be that it might take a couple of days to fight large battles whereas the other sets ment they could probaby fight large battles in one night. When I spend so long researching battles painting hundreds of figures and setting up terrain I want it to last longer than a few hours. Their other main complaint is that R2E is a ground up set of rules with too much unit detail and not enough on grand tactical detail. They obviously missed the first 50 pages which cover command and control, handling Corps and Divisons and Brigade orders but they site Black Powder as dealing well with this situation. Having had many games of BP there doesn't even seem to be much in the way of Brigade control let alone higher echelons. I just wonder if they got their reviews mixed up?

Cheers
Dave

[18th Century Guy]

Dave,

I'm with you on your statement about taking time to research and paint for a game. I too do not want it to be over in a few hours. Not that I want a game to take forever but at the same time I want to see everyone's hard work on the table for more than 3 or 4 hours.

[18th Century Guy]

One more thing - can someone translate what PMT means? Thanks.

[PaulMc]

PMT is another term for TMP. I'm guessing it's a play on the older term for PMS. Pretty accurate if you ask me.

I haven't read the review in Miniature Wargames, nor do I intend to. I much prefer actual toilet paper.

[msk]

PMT is another term for TMP. I'm guessing it's a play on the older term for PMS.

Yes, that's the gist of it. Many TMPer's get too hot under the collar over silly little things. I expect even me typing this wil be enough to set off some of them.

[CoffinDodger]

My Dearest Bruce,

I am sitting in the smallest room in the house. Your review is before me. Shortly it will be behind me.

Yours etc.,

Jim

[Captain Chook]

[msk]

Regretably I am unlikely to read the review as I never buy that tired little mag and haven't done since the 'good' Mr Macfarlane ceased to edit it. My loss I am certain.

Barry, just a quick observation - we mustn't get the reviewer *Bruce* MacFarlane mixed up with the former MW editor *Duncan* MacFarlane. Unless, of course, they are one in the same or very closely related.

[barr7430]

No Martin,

you may have missed my reference to the 'good mr macfarlane' at the beginning of the thread. Duncan and I go back quite a long way and know each other pretty well. Even if he thought my rules SUCKED he's too nice a chap to say it