[Board/Tactical Game]: Battue: Storm of the Horse Lords, reviewed by Tom Vasel (5/3)

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/13/13571.phtml

Tom Vasel's Summary:

I think I could list a dozen light war games that I would prefer to play before Battue. Yet I keep bringing it to functions, to my game club, and more. That's because it has a high appeal to folks, and it's easy to teach and play. It might be one of the few games that I would classify as a \"family war game\", because that's exactly what it is.

Go to the full review for more information.

[TGerritsen]

You say luck and wargame like they are both dirty words. While you are a prodigious reviewer and extremely well read (or is that played?), I find that I just don't find a lot of value from your reviews because everything you seem to dislike about the gaming experience is stuff I enjoy. I don't think I'd ever enjoy playing a game with you because I don't think your tastes area anywhere near my own.

That's not a personal slam, or a discount of your review, which was, on style and substance, excellent. I guess I enjoy the experience of play much more than you seem to. I could be wrong, but in the reviews I've read, you seem to like games where the player's individual intelligence and mastery of tactics allows them to achieve victory every time, and I note that you thus tend to discount games where the victor is more luck based and the design more focused around the social experience.

You are obviously intelligent, a great writer, and you have lots of fans round these parts. This isn't necessarily a criticism of you at all. I just find that there are games I absolutely can't stand for more than a minute of play that you seem to adore, and games that you hate that I absolutely love. I only note this because you seem to be the only reviewer many times for new releases and I'd welcome another counterpoint voice. Maybe you should team up with someone and do Siskel and Ebert style reviews?

Eh, that's just selfish of me, but I'd appreciate it nonetheless.

[Wood]

Originally Posted by TGerritsen

You say luck and wargame like they are both dirty words. While you are a prodigious reviewer and extremely well read (or is that played?), I find that I just don't find a lot of value from your reviews because everything you seem to dislike about the gaming experience is stuff I enjoy. I don't think I'd ever enjoy playing a game with you because I don't think your tastes area anywhere near my own.

That's not a personal slam, or a discount of your review, which was, on style and substance, excellent. I guess I enjoy the experience of play much more than you seem to. I could be wrong, but in the reviews I've read, you seem to like games where the player's individual intelligence and mastery of tactics allows them to achieve victory every time, and I note that you thus tend to discount games where the victor is more luck based and the design more focused around the social experience.

You are obviously intelligent, a great writer, and you have lots of fans round these parts. This isn't necessarily a criticism of you at all. I just find that there are games I absolutely can't stand for more than a minute of play that you seem to adore, and games that you hate that I absolutely love. I only note this because you seem to be the only reviewer many times for new releases and I'd welcome another counterpoint voice. Maybe you should team up with someone and do Siskel and Ebert style reviews?

Eh, that's just selfish of me, but I'd appreciate it nonetheless.

Oh, I don't know. Tastes may differ, but there's something to be said for a good reviewer like Tom Vasel, inasmuch as, even if the reviewer doesn't like a game, you still have a good idea if you're going to. Like, I have a good idea that I'd probably quite enjoy Battue, even if Tom doesn't like it. He makes his preferences pretty clear in the review, and mentions over and over again that most people he's showed it to really love it.

Dan Davenport's good for that; I still remember being utterly sold on Deliria thanks to Davenport's review, which wasn't positive, but which was comprehensive and well-explained enough for me to pick up that a lot of things he didn't like about it (eg. non-emphasis on combat) were things that I valued in a game, and, having got hold of a copy, Davenport's assessment (and my assessment of Davenport's assessment) held up.