1. A note to the subscribers to whom I mail the REVIEW. The date on your mailing label refers to the last issue in your subscription. Which means that if the annotated date is 7/01", your subscription doesn't end in July, but expires when I mail you the July, 2001 issue.
And since I'm always a couple of months behind, that particular issue may not get mailed until December of that year, at which time you receive a 'do you want to re-subscribe?' notice.
2. Over the years, I've found few rules sets that I want to play more than once, eventhose that I derive. In the pages of the REVIEW, you'll see references to what appears to be the same set, but really isn't... as the result of feedback, or the fact that I want to try out a new ploy, the rules constantly change.
An example of this occurred when I recently visited Bob Hurst and foisted three different WW2 armor games on him. Bob's comment was "Cheez, we seem to be playing the same game again and again!"
Well... almost... but not quite.
All the WW2 rules sets used 10 or so stands for a force, and all required data sheets for the units to track their ever-decreasing efficiencies. But, there were differences. All the sets had slightly differing sequences. In one set, we had a supply routine to furnish the field units with ammunition. In another, the sides could call on an airstrike, and in another, we could call on what I termed "pop up" anti-tank guns which could mysteriously appear at a desired location, but which were very vulnerable to enemy fire. And I have no doubt that on my next visit to Bob, there'll be even more ploys and procedures to be tried out. Hopefully, no one can accuse me of wanting to play my own rules, that is, the same set, over and over again.
Published rules affect me in a different manner. Here, the author supposedly presents me with a perfect and well-tested set of rules (I know so, because he's charging $20 or more for his research), and right off the bat, I'm on my guard.
Usually, a single experience with a published set is sufficient for me to note if the author's claims are viable. In some instances, the reason for a second go-round is not because I enjoy the game, but because I want to understand what the author is trying to tell me, and a one-time scenario is not sufficient to make the author's point.
This was the case with the old WRG rules... I tried and tried and tried again... and finally gave up.
PIQUET is another such set. I've had great difficulty trying to determine (1) what Bob Jones, the author, is trying to do, and in particular, (2) why, in light of the haze, the rules seem to be so popular. And so, I've sat table-side at many PIQUET games, as both player and observer, and listened to many explanations about what's unfolding... or purportedly unfolding... on the field.
Alas! The PIQUET rationale continues to escape me.
Back to PW Review January 2001 Table of Contents
Back to PW Review List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 2001 Wally Simon
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com