"Rule Reviews" Topic

There's been a poll or two & a recent thread concerning this topic.

TMP link

One of the few areas wargames' magazines are superior to a forum such as this is you can get relatively even handed reviews of rules. We tend to get a little hot under the collar not to mention the notorious, "I hate these rules….maybe I should read them" type.

I'm not suggesting rule sets shouldn't be discussed on the relevant boards but I wonder if it possible to set up a system (with locked threads?) where a designated reviewer would point out the salient facts?

When magazines do reviews it is called native advertising and the reviewers are called shills.

Did the reviewer pay full price for the rules? Did the magazine buy the rules at full price for the reviewer? Does the rules publisher take out advertising in the magazine?

The end product a magazine sells is the reader. The magazine sells the reader to the advertiser.

@ KnightTemplarr

link

Most people are aware of this. I don't think it changes my point.

I'm not sure how it could be possible for human beings to have opinions with out a point of view. That seems to be just what you're proposing. I really don't like the sound of 'locked threads'. Sounds like something right out of 1984.
Look, a person can, as I type this, type their own post as they wish. That includes what you suggest about a review of any rules in existence. So what then is your point? That no one with a contrary view should be allowed to express themselves? I'm not a great fan of fussing. But I'm dead set against even the hint of muzzling folks.
After all, if we do have some sort of controlled forum about rules. The argument may very well become centered on the mode of control. That's happened here before.
How about we just do as we've been doing? It may not be perfect, but it almost certainly beats anything we might do otherwise…

@ Robbie

When you buy an appliance & it comes with an instruction booklet, there's not much in the way of opinion there. This is what I'm proposing. Basic information.

A locked thread is not an attack on the US constitution but a common device on forums where the moderator makes an announcement that is not open for discussion. Call it a "Sticky" if it makes it easier.

I think you're over reacting a little: the rule set in question could be discussed elsewhere as I wrote in the OP.
eg TMP link

But the editor can already make announcements. I didn't see your idea as an attack on our Constitution. It just seemed unnecessary. What you propose, as you just explained it, is already an option for Bill.
Who, other than Bill, or another editor, would write these reviews? In my experience, it would be the author, or their agent. War games rules aren't much like appliances. If the toaster ruins the toast, because of poor design, it's kind of hard to hide the fact. But a rule mechanism can be open to opinion, both pro and con. And both can be right. Both could be wrong, too.
Oh, and if you'd be so kind… My name is spelt Robby.
If you really feel strongly about this maybe you should propose such to Bill directly. Nothing wrong with asking the groups opinion, but he's the one you really need to convince…

My apologies, Robby.

I think you originally made an issue of "freedom of speech"?

Feel strongly? Hardly. It was a mere request, a "thought-bubble" as the media here calls it & I think Bill does read these posts.

Who, other than Bill, or another editor, would write these reviews?

Good question. I would think this would be too onerous for Bill but I think a small number of toast-experts could offer to write reviews on appro.

I quite like burnt (at least dark) toast & I realise, as do most, that an opinion must be scrutinised. I would find value in solid information on fundamentals such as base sizes, phases of the game, supporting materials etc). There are too many rule sets to justify buying loads in an attempt to find one you might like. This may narrow it down.

I use the search function here to find threads on rules, and the general consensus more often than I use it to search for anything else.

I'm not sure locked threads would work, more like pinned threads for a while on a rules review section of the forum.

I did bring up the ability to communicate opinions, both favorable and otherwise. So, freedom of speech is quite correct. But I see now that you seem to think it should be a detailed analysis of rules. I drop my complaint as to discussion.
It would seem to me that the best folks qualified to comment fully on a set of rules would be the author. I wouldn't mind such. But, as another has stated, that could also be seen as an advertisement.
I would like to know more about rules such as base sizes. But I find that I can do so through this site and through other means. I have the great good fortune to have access, through the good offices of a great games store, to a rather large number of fellow gamers. Some one amongst us almost always is at least some what familiar with new rule sets. I haven't always been so fortunate. It was due to the help of a fellow member of this site that I found the group I game with these days.
So, bring on the toast experts. But there will be some as fuss about it;)

But there will be some as fuss about it;)

Always. but that's what makes the denizens at TMP such interesting folk!

A good search engine for the current site would be a start – the current search function is awkward to use and makes it tough (and slow) to find stuff.

Whilst we all hold our breath and wait for TMP next gen it is better to use Google to search TMP by adding site:theminiatuturespage.com after your search string – this will tell Google to only give you matching answers from this site. For example

napoleonic rules site:theminiaturespage.com

I use Google, TMP added to the search argument. Way faster.

@ochoin

It entirely changes your point since it is not a review at that point but native advertising. It would not be a review but an ad.

That link fails to point out that it has been entirely effective and is still effectively used to this day. The funniest part is that idea a survey was done at all.

In fact they use 4 out of 5 or 9 out of 10 not because they was an actual survey. But, they know if they say all dentists agree, for example, people will doubt it out of human nature. Because 100% consensus is extremely rare. So, adding just the hint of dissent makes it believable. People just have the impression mot people agree.

In the days before the internet magazines reviewed figures and games frequently. I remember a prominent wargaming magazine touting a line of newly imported figures. These figures were carried by one of their main advertisers. The only problem being they were obviously pirated from a well known company and conversions of their figures to make other types. That magazine never mentioned that actual industry news ever.

Which is how the magazine "reviews" will be done. Here is the meaningless bad thing and here are the reason you should buy it now via our big advertisers online shop.