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