Quote from: BalbinusLev has a good point, a historically accurate magic system is a system that reflects a magic that works as people of the time believed it worked.

I think this would be a good point if the game were purely historical in scope. It's not. It's very clearly historical fantasy. In this context, straying from established historical reality (or perception thereof as defined by people who may or may not have been alive at the time) is entirely permissible. A good point becomes a poorly reasoned nitpick in this context.

Quote from: lev_lafayette1) The "roll randomly on d100 for characteristics in order" has a harsh bell curve and usually means that players get characters that the don't really want.

Honestly, I have to wonder if you even bothered to read the review when you mention things like this. :rolleyes:

I criticize the method for generating characteristic ratings at some length, specifically noting that the system makes getting stuck undesireable characters a very real possibility.

I also address what I perceived as being rather poor attempts to address this reality after the fact, when an overhaul of the characteristic generation method would have been the wiser move.

Quote2) The extremely impoverished skill and experience point system doesn't help (did you work out whether experience is allocated or randomly rolled on d10).

Actually, this is pretty straightforward (and, again, menitoned in the review). You spend XP to earn the right make an improvement roll. If this roll is successful, yoy get to raise the rating of the skill you were testing. It's very similar to the old Runequest skill advancement system, actually.

Quote3) The astoundingly ahistorical magic system (especially for a game that is supposed to be historic fantasy).

I've already addressed this above. There is a very real divide between works of hsitorical fact and works of historical fantasy The word "historical" does not make these things the same. One of them is fantasy, which by extension, means that it isn't 100% historically accurate.

Quote4) The incredibly naive treatment of feudal professions.

Again, this isn't a game of historical accuracy -- it's a game of historical fantasy. Most of the professions seem to have been described in this context.

Quote5) The fact that designing a simple character takes an hour and a half...

That wasn't my experience at all. Granted, the organization of the game (again, as noted in the review) made this more painful than it should have been, but after learning where everything was, it took me about 30 minutes to create a character.

Quote6) and sweet mother, did you test the combat system? Just one hit takes eight rolls. I'm not sure whether this really is a good thing. Actually, I'm pretty sure it isn't.

Again, did you bother to read the review? I make no attempt to conceal the fact that the combat system can be complex when all of the options are used in actual play, though by default, I didn't find it to be anymore bothersome than that in games such as The Riddle of Steel or The Burning Wheel.  

QuoteThis is aside of the authors rather meagre description of regional history and his unkind treatment of medieval Islam.

For somebody who complains about historical accuracy as much as you do, this seems like an odd complaint -- in the time periods of the two example settings, Christian Europe took a rather dim view of Islam. The sparse setting descriptions that you deride were, I suspect, necessary because of space constraints.

You obviously didn't like the game, but before you shred my review I'd appreciate it if you took the time to read it.