As a rule, I don't like to be negative as far as wargaming is concerned. It's a small hobby, and while there are times when a serve may be required I've seen that firing off with double barrels tends not to win you any friends, and nor does it take into account that most people are writing rules for the love of it, not for the money. On top of that, should some eagle-eyed reader realise that you've misunderstood the rules you are savaging you end up embarrassed, apologetic for having been unjust, and overall looking like a prize idiot.
Despite knowing all that I was almost about to go off on a rant here. Having come back to and played through a game of Neil Thomas's One Hour Wargames, I'd been thoroughly disappointed. It had not been all that impressive first time around, but here I could see that it was completely broken. I was incensed enough to gear up to write up a negative review, wondering why it is that Neil Thomas can serve up garbage and apparently get given a free pass.
But at that point a sort of wargamer's 6th sense kicked in.
I went over the rules again. Was I sure I hadn't been doing something wrong? Nope, nothing jumped out at me. I was pretty sure I was playing it as written.
I checked again. This time I looked at a few reviews from bloggers I respect. Mostly positive. There was the odd dissenting voice, but nobody saying what the problem I had with the rules was.
And then I realised: yes, I had in fact been playing it wrong.
|Franks observe Norsemen as yet unaware their flank is threatened...|
So I went back and replayed the game with the right rule interpretation, and it was far more satisfactory.
There are still grey areas, but it was not the disaster that my rule misinterpretation had made it.
And the lesson here for me? It's wise to think before I post!