An apology - Inaccuracies in the Pickett's Charge review
This entry was posted on April 27, 2017.
Games reviews in a wargaming magazine must be objective, accurate and based on at least several playthroughs of the game in question. To do anything else is a disservice to our readers, to the game publisher and to our own reputation.
Nevertheless, we are human, as are our reviewers, and sometimes we make mistakes. If that happens, we need to own up to them, apologise for the error and correct them.
The review of Pickett’s Charge in WSS 90 failed to live up to our standards. As the editor, I take full responsibility for this and will take measures to ensure this does not happen again.
Most importantly, the reviewer made several inaccurate claims:
- The rules in Section 2 (pages 11 and 12) do make a clear distinction in the size of units. A Brigade is configured as between two and six bases (with some historical units justifying 8 bases, but this will be scenario specific). Gameplay can use historical orbats, to an agreed amount or use points.
- In the Troop Type section (page 13), it is stated that the number of troops per base is up to the player, as bases are removed as casualties, not individual figures. The suggested size for 28mm is four models per base, so a suggested unit can be from 8 to 24 models. The rules, however, are figure neutral, it is entirely up to the player what basing arrangement is used.
- The sequence of play is clearly laid out on page 26, with a stage by stage breakdown of the Turn Sequence. It is repeated on the playsheet.
I have now read through the rules myself as well and I disagree with the review regarding the layout of the rules. I found them to be concise and clear.
Normally, I forward rules for review as soon as they come in to give the reviewer as much time as possible to do a thorough job. However, that means I usually do not get a chance to read them myself, and am without a reference copy when the review is sent in. I have to trust the reviewer to get it right. However, the responsibility for publishing is on my shoulders, so I must take the blame for this inaccurate review.
I wish to sincerely apologise to Richard Clarke of TooFatLardies and to the author, Dave Brown. This review was simply not up to our usual standards. In future, we will be checking the game reviews section thoroughly to ensure that mistakes like the above do not reoccur.