New TROS review at RPG.NET

[Morfedel]

just an FYI. Seems like a reasonable review, all told.

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10119.phtml

[Malechi]

Once again SAs are locked away in the basement of a review.  

Having said that, I do think the reviewer calls it as he sees it and his comments don't seem too far off-base.  Given I care less about art now than I did 10 years ago, I mean, I don't get to play with the art do I?

Jase

[Lance D. Allen]

A little harsh on the art (I think the TRoS art is pretty damned good, with some glaring exceptions) but overall a very good and very solid review. His phrasing was a bit less than respectful at a few points, but the points made were mostly spot on.

[arxhon]

Yeah, for someone who is so concerned about art, he sure got the cover wrong.

Not that i'm questioning the rest of the review; it's pretty good and fairly solid.

And again, SA's get short shrift.

[Caz]

It's the first TROS review I've mostly agreed with.  It'd make me buy it if I already hadn't.

[Jake Norwood]

Overall a very, very fair review.  The controversial ones sell more, though...

Ha.

Yeah, well done.

Jake

[Deacon Blues]

I make it a point never to respond to either critics or fans (a good piece of advice given to me years ago).  What's printed is what's printed.  So don't take it personally if I leave your points unanswered or don't respond to your thanks.

However, I will say I'm glad to know you guys are keeping an eye out.  :)