Ask any wargamer why they wargame and within the first 20 words or so of their reply will be mentioned an interest in, or fascination for, military history. For the most part I no longer believe that it's true. It may have started that way but now they have drifted.

True wargaming is about recreating historical conflicts, plausible "what ifs" and typical or representative scenarios. At least that would be the message from the Wargames Central Press Office if such a thing existed. They'd conveniently forget competition games - let's face it these are all a bit embarrassing really. In reality, even with competitive games to one side, a lot of wargamers play incredibly contrived games with a desire to win, like they are kids with a new game, (but less willing to compromise).

I believe that this attitude is likely to be less prevalent amongst those with a "Battlefields" mindset but nevertheless all wargamers are tarred with the same brush by Joe Public. However, life is rarely black and white. It's rare that a person is so easily pigeonholed.

My attempt to conceptualize all this runs as follows: Imagine a line with a scale marked along it running from 1-10. At one extreme is the word "war" and at the other "game".

All wargamers position themselves, consciously or subconsciously, somewhere along this line. The nearer to one end you stand the less weight You attach to the other.

SOME EXAMPLES

At the other extreme there dwells the competition gamer. His super army will take on all comers from any corner of the globe as long as they are within his period. (A "period" is a concept unknown to historians and is fixed by a set of rules rather than history.) On the way to the final the super army will have battled armies its historical counterpart would neither have heard of nor recognised, probably have fought a civil war or two, on terrain alien to both armies and been in more 50:50 starts than any half decent general would choose.

THE SILLY BIT

Based on the past 24 months, tick boxes that either apply to you or are alongside statements that you agree with. Where a statement is later expanded on you may score more than once. Count each expansion as far as you agree:

Score 1 point for each box you tick of the following:

A I possess an arc of fire template: (or similar).

B I have watched a wargames competition game.

C I keep the full rule book to hand in a game.

D I don't feel capable of writing my own rules.

Score 2 points for each box you tick of the following:

A I have used an arc of fire template

B I often pick my armies using a points system.

C I like to watch wargames competition games.

D I refer to the full rule book during a game to see what my troops can or cannot do.

E The edge of the table is a good flank guard.

F Fantasy gaming is very similar to historical gaming.

G Wargaming is a skill in its own right.

H A "God's Eye" view of the table can be factored out.

Score 3 points for each box you tick of the following:

A I always use an arc of fire template (or similar).

B I always pick my armies using a points system.

C I have sold an army that wasn't good enough.

D I have played in a wargames competition.

E I can tell you what page 14, paragraph 2 of my favourite set of rules says.

F I have had reason to check my opponents move distances, angles of fire etc.

G I refer to the full rule book during a game to see what my opponent's troops can or cannot do.

H I know the difference between a Medium and a Light-Medium infantryman.

Score 4 points for each box you tick of the following:

A I make my opponent use an arc of fire template.

B There is no other way to pick a fair army other than by using points system.

C I always sell armies that aren't good enough.

D I am the wargames champion. (Fill in any period as required) 20 bonus points if "National" appears anywhere.

EI know who the wargames champion is. (Fill in period as required)

F I save what page 14, paragraph 2 of my favourite set of rules says for when I really need it.

G It is only right to check an opponent's move distances, angles of fire etc.

H I refer to the full rule book during a game to properly limit what my opponent's troops can do.

I I understand and care about the difference between a Medium and a Light-Medium infantryman.

J Wargames competitions give a good idea of the relative merits of various armies.

K Yes, you could describe many of my historic games as "fantasy" but "fantasy" itself is just a period.

Miscellaneous, score as indicated:

A Not enough rules cover flaming tar pigs. [3]

B DBA is too simplistic to be of any value. [5]

C I always sell armies that aren't good enough, ideally to likely competition opponents. [6]

D I apply page 14, paragraph 2 to my opponent no matter how patently absurd. [8]

E Any tank less powerful than a Panther is barely worth putting on the table in a WW2 game. [5]

F Roman* vs Aztecs is a perfectly plausible "what if" scenario. [5]

G It's only to be expected that an opponent will check my move distances, arcs of fire etc. [5]

H There is a significant difference in melee between a 13' end 14' spear. [5]

I I have a favourite (in game terms) type of rifle. [5]

J Like any dedicated competitor I spend several evenings a week training in my chosen "sport". [10]

* If you feel "Romans" is too generic a term then insert "Camillan", "Marian", "Late (East) or (West)" etc. as you feel helps, but also score 25 bonus points.

Finally, lose points for each box you tick of the following:

A I write my own rules. [-2]

B I have a life outside of wargames. [-1]

C I have a real life outside of wargames. (Does not include computing.) [-2]

D I have a life outside of wargames, and friends. (Only includes friends you can go out for a drink with. Not virtual, invisible or internet friends.) [-3]

E I have a life outside of wargames and am not just saying so. I can prove it. [-5]

Now add up your total score and divide by 10 to get your linear wargaming standing. If you score more than 100 points then go no further - you have no personality!

IN CONCLUSION