"For example, there was the Macedonian Army whose standing orders operated in such a way that its phalanx could never charge an opponent . . ." (Phil Barker; The Courier, Vol. I, No. 3). I would like to see those orders myself. It could be that the player made a mistake, but then again, he may have set up a situation in which he could get his entire army to do what he wanted by giving battle field orders to just two or three units. Since when is it the rules author's job to see to it that a player doesn't trip over his own standing orders? Have we outlawed slingers or elephants because some players can't use them? No. Around here we advise those who can't use them to eliminate them from their army. But, just because some people don't know how to use them, standing orders are to be outlawed, right? "Ah, but some people have been using standing orders to circumvent the rules governing the writing of battle field order," you say. Do you want to close all the loopholes in all of the editions of the rules? "When playing with a set of rules historical arguments have no bearing except to criticise the rule writer . . ." (Phil Barker; personal letter, 1979) ". . . we have the underlying principle that any attempt to use one rule to evade the consequences of another is illegal . . ." (Phil Barker; personal letter, 1979). Caesar reports two separate occasions in which Gauls used testudo formations against him (Commentaries on the Gallic War; Bk. 2, Chap. 6; Bk. 7, Chap. 85). The rules should allow, as far as possible, the use of historic formations and tactics. They should not, however, upset the 'balance of efficiency' between armies or negate the problems of command inherent to them. This requires the sacrifice of some tactical capabilities such as the Gallic testudo. The problem of handling a North Gaulish Army centered around avoiding the confusion and congestion attending large numbers of levy troops in the field. The Roman Player, on the other hand, should be more concerned with precision in the execution of small tactics. If the overall advantages and disadvantages of an army are to be represented, "what they occasionally did" (the historic argument) must take a back seat to relative efficiency and playability. While on the subject, "what they could have done" should have no bearing on the rules whatsoever. Detractions In view of the above, I feel that both the Fourth and the Fifth Editions of these rules rank among the best I have seen in twenty years. Unfortunately, the amendments announced for the Sixth Edition tend to detract from them. In allowing troops with HOLD orders to take a voluntary reaction test to prevent them from pursuing, command control is extended well beyond that of even a modern commander. It allows a general to exercise direct control over troops that, by reason of distance or terrain, he may not even know are engaged. Admittedly, troops with HOLD orders may actually obey them in these circumstances, but it is also true that they may do so to the severe detriment of their army. If we must have a change in this area, it would seem more fair (if not realistic) to make this test mandatory for all troops with HOLD orders regardless of the Players' intentions. To be perfectly honest though, I don't believe that even this would add significantly to the game. As far as SUPPORT orders are concerned, let me offer just three of the many reasons that I feel that they should be retained in the game: 1) The left flank of a phalanx is open. I want to place Javelinmen on it to secure it. If I give them ATTACK orders they are likely to run at anything that moves and expose the flank. If I give them Skirmish orders they are likely to run away from anything that moves exposing the flank. If I give them orders to hold the left flank of the phalanx I'm obviously trying to duck around the rule against giving orders to support a unit. Therefore, this order is illegal. Any legal HOLD order will leave the Javelinmen standing around long after the flank they are supposed to be protecting has moved on. One of the oldest concepts in warfare is flank protection. It may predate the period covered by these rules by a thousand years or more. Even the dumbest primitive (troop type not player) we are likely to encounter in these games would know that, if he is going to protect a flank, he is going to have to stay on or near it. Whether he does it or not is more properly a question of reaction than allowable orders. 2) According to Caesar (Commentaries; Bk. 1 Chap. 48) the Germans assigned one infantryman to each cavalryman in their army. "There were 6,000 horse, and as many . . . foot, one of whom each of the horse selected for his own protection. By these (foot) they were constantly accompanied in their engagements; to these the horse retired; these on any emergency rushed forward; if anyone, upon receiving a severe wound, had fallen from his horse, they stood around him . . ." These were not units or even sub-units but one specific infantryman to assist one specific cavalryman. The ARMY LISTS already permit more flexibility than the German Army had by not requiring this attachment of cavalry to infantry. Without SUPPORT orders it becomes impossible for the conscientious player to even attempt to duplicate this. And yet it appears to have been characteristic of the German Army of Caesar's time. 3) In the New Kingdom, the Egyptians seem to have had three classes of chariot troops: Drivers Chariot Warriors and Runners. These last were supposed to accompany the chariots into battle on foot. Last Summer I wrote Mr. Barker asking if these runners could be mixed in with the chariots or be set up in a sub-unit. His response was that they should be set up as a separate unit with orders to support the chariots. I've always felt that I should attempt to field an army which conforms, as closely as possible, to the general proportion of troop types usually found in its historical prototype. The New Kingdom Egyptian Army Chariot Arm generally accounted for about fifty percent of the total army. In a one-thousand point army where runners are not permitted this would amount to something like twenty chariots as opposed to fifteen with runners. Again, in terms of relative efficiency, this doesn't seem right at all. We seem to have here a set of rules purporting to simulate ancient warfare which allows untypical army organizations or 'weights'. It seems, in fact, that with each new edition the rules move ever closer to outlawing historical T.O. even where such organizations did not upset the game balance. Though, as stated above, the historical argument should carry very little weight, compared to relative efficiency in interpreting the rules, should this attitude be extended to the point of governing the writing of them? It seems to me that if there is any glaring fault in the game, it is in the ARMY LISTS which warp the flexibility (or lack thereof) of several of the armies. In every other game I am familiar with (not just wargames) abuse of a rule is no different from ignoring the rule altogether. Should we approach this game any differently? Since elimination of every rule that is subject to potential abuse would most likely leave us with a book full of empty pages, perhaps a better course would be to crack down on the rule mechanics and loop-hole artists. As far as I can see there is nothing in the Fifth Edition (or the Fourth) that requires changing if the players approach the game honestly. But then again, it should be kept in mind that in my opinion rule mechanics and loop-hole artists are just trying to gain an unfair advantage. Where I come from that's synonomous with cheating. As far as the changes announced in the Courier Vol. I, No. 3 are concerned I don't believe they will be all that beneficial. Did someone say that they were requested by the players? I don't know of anyone that wants them. If anyone out there believes that he or she can write a better set of rules than we have right now, do it! If they really are significantly better I'm sure you will find a ready and eager market for them. In the meantime, kindly let the rest of us enjoy what we have. PHIL BARKER REPLIES I think I should point out that 6th edition will not be compulsory! Anyone who wants to go on using 5th is welcome to do so, provided that he can find opponents to play him. However, I think the great majority will decide 6th is a sufficient improvement to be worth the change. 5th edition is now 5 years old and feeling its age, so that isn't too difficult to achieve. One area where 5th is not working as well as it might is the standing order system. The problem is not that players are victimising themselves, as Brian seems to think, but that they are victimising their opponents. If a rule is being broken by all but two entrants in a competition, it seems to me that it is either a bad rule or unenforceable, so we are obligated to do something about it. In reply to one of the other points raised, any set of rules is going to be only an approximation of real warfare. Take that one Ll assisting one LC point. A figure represents 20 men. Should we assume that in fact it represents 20 men but only 10 horses? How would you represent this with a figure? How fast should it move? How should it fight? It just so happens that the easiest way to simulate the effect is to organise infantry and cavalry figures in separate units, or unit and sub-unit. I like the idea of using light infantry with javelins to secure the flank of a phalanx -- I invite all my opponents to try it! I think Brian is trying to persuade troops to do something that they would not do in real life. If you charged such a unit in real life, it would probably run away, exposing the flank it was guarding. If it didn't, it would be broken, and still expose the flank it was guarding. Isn't this what the rules should be producing? Back to Table of Contents -- Courier Vol. 1 #6 To Courier List of Issues To MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1980 by The Courier Publishing Company. This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com