Barry, as you say, rules writing is a personal thing.
I cut my teeth on Charles Grant's "The Wargame" and find the discursive style he and you utilise easy to read and informative allowing an understanding of the rules ideology & rationale to sink in. This then means that the spirit of the rules is understandable allowing players (and an umpire should one be needed) to make decisions in the spirit of the game - black & white issues should be easily visible on the playsheet/QRS. A good index is also a great boon. The rules set should be a "good read"!
(As an aside, if competition games must be played, I rather like the approach of "The Evil Empire" (Games Workshop) umpires - match points are often deducted from the players if the umpire is called to settle a dispute!!)
Side boxes of text & explanation I find annoying unless kept to a minimum. The text size, font, headings etc in the teaser samples are fine, and the illustrations inspiring & informative. Not 100% sure about the wavy lines on the table though - they will probably straighten after the first pint!
I find rule sets of the barebones, minimalist, dot-pointed style daunting and boring to read & suggestive that players of such are more interested in mathematical dice rolling and gamesmanship than enjoying a game in the spirit of the era purportedly depicted - WRG DBM classically springs to mind. That set, and many of the players, put me off Ancients for a decade! Thankfully, there was Grant, Featherstone & latterly WAB! Just my personal taste!
So keep up the good work & please continue your style - it suits my old school wargames mentality where rules queries, if not looked up in a minute or so, are settled by dice throw based on the spirit of the game & era.
Cheers, Rohan
(definitely from the League of Old-School Gentlemen Gamers)