The reviewer of publications for Hal Thinglum's Midwest Wargaming Association Newsletter (MWAN) is Steve Dake, who apparently gets under-the-counter copies of the REVIEW to peruse (there is no "Steve Dake" on my subscription list) Steve's MWAN column is thorough... he certainly couldn't have subscriptions to every publication he reviews. In the most current MWAN, he covered 34 separate magazines, newsletters, catalogs, etc. In this last MWAN, Steve (I shall call him Steve, even though he refers to me as "Mr. Simon") indicated that I have become a Reviewer of Rules (the caps are Steve's). Steve stated this rather accusingly, I thought, as if a Reviewer of Rules was something, or someone, to be avoided. Whatever the connotation, I cannot classify myself as a true Reviewer of Rules. I read a set of rules, play a couple of games, look solely at the flow and the gaming system, and if I find nothing extraordinary, I say so... perhaps a wee bit caustically... and quit. If, on the other hand, there's something interesting, unusual and innovative about the procedures, I will favorably remark on it and probably steal it for my own rules systems. A true Reviewer of Rules would pound away at the simulation aspect, the historicity, the realism, the "flavor of the period". I hate to admit it, but I'm not qualified to comment on these aspects... I am not a historian. In truth, not too many people are so qualified, but that doesn't stop 'em from coming out of the walls like termites. In contrast to these experts, I am but a simple country lad, born in a small country village, educated by candle light at my mother's knee, etc., etc., who merely likes to play games. 2. And while I'm on the subject of reviewing rules, let me comment on one type of "review" which appears all too frequently, which I term the "why even menttion it?" review, and which goes like this: Recently received a copy of CROIS DE MERDE by Eric Schlock. Haven't played it, haven't really read it, but it looks just great! There are 3 pages of rules, 87 pages of army listings, and provisions for firing, morale, movement and melee. This is obviously Eric's best effort to date! Good work, Eric! One will immediately note that aside from opening the rules" book, the "reviewer" did little else. Guys like this should be banned f rom the hobby. Or better yet... they should be forced to play CROIS DE MERDE and then eat the rules. 4.Fred Haub informs me that of late, in recent issues of the REVIEW, I have overused the term "realism", bashing away at the concept as if I had a chip on my shoulder. I must plead guilty to the accusation... my one-man crusade denying the aspect of realism in table-top wargames shall continue unabated. Note that it's not "realism" itself that sends me up the wall... it's the aspect, or perhaps a better term would be the persvective of people who claim they actually play realistic wargames. I have no doubt that these good folk also believe in flatland, the phlogistic theory of combustibility, and in the tooth fairy. Back to PW Review August 1990 Table of Contents Back to PW Review List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1990 Wally Simon This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com