RULES AVAILABLE FOR PIKE & SHOT SKIRMISH In "Small Unit Wargames in the Pike and Shot Period" (Vol. VIII, No. 2), Mr. Nascati should have qualified his statement that "there are at this time, no sets of rules that will accurately depict warfare at the individual level in the pike and shot period", with "that I know of". I have been playing just such as set of rules, called Once Upon a Time in the West Country. I find them to be a good set of rules, and, although billed as "English Civil War Skirmish Wargame Rules", I believe them to better depict warfare at the individual level in the pike and shot period than could be done by any easy conversion of the three sets of rules listed by Mr. Nascati (all of which I possess and am familiar with to some extent). Additionally, they are part of a set of rules for increasing larger scale ECW wargaming that also includes File Leader (Company & Troop Level) and Forlorn Hope (Army Level). All of which are good rules sets in my experience. They can be obtained from: Partizan Press, 26 Cliffsea Grove, Leigh-on-Sea, Essex SS9 1 NQ United Kingdom. Prices are quite reasonable at £1.25, £1.25 and £2.99 respectively, plus p&p. --M. TROUT, Fenton, MI AUSTRIAN JAGER GREY I refer to the letter by Mr. Kelley published in The Courier Vol. VIII, No. 2 concerning the Austrian jager's grey. In my article published in Miniature Wargames No. 47, I gave grey-green. I was wrong. It is grey-bluish as Mr. Kelley wrote referring to Knotel. II had occasion to see a uniform in a museum. It is grey with a soft shade of bluish. There two other mistakes I have to amend. Haller Hussar regiment had white shako instead of grass-green; the 46th Jellacic regiment was Hungarian, not German. These last two were due to mistakes in typewriting. I thank Mr. Kelley for his letter. I apologize for inconvenience that may have occurred from these mistakes. --LUIGI CASALI, Pavia, Italy A QUERY FROM JOHNSON HOOD I refer to the letters from Mr. T. Fore and Mr. P. Barker in Hobby Publications claiming, inter alla, that the North American Ancients Society (N.A.S.A.M. W.) is using modified rules/interpretations and: "requiring their mandatory use in future U.S. Ancients Competitions" (Version #1); or "compulsory at all tournaments" (Version #2). If true, these are serious matters indeed. Too serious, for example, for anyone of integrity to make such a claim without demonstrable evidence. Therefore, could the authors of these letters please provide evidence to support their claim. (I have sent a copy of this letter to each of them, to enable any response to be set out alongside this letter.) If they are unable to produce evidence, perhaps they could share with readers the intellectual justification for making such a claim without evidence. Anyone interested in N.A.S.A.M.W. policy toward "mandatory" rules/interpretations has only to read The Courier Vol. VI No. 5 page 42, "Invitation to participate in the N. American Ancients Championships". Column 1. Second paragraph from the bottom: "Heats may use any format they wish." Any format includes any rules set, let alone any specific interpretations (see Column 2-Format for the Final Rounds). Column 2. Third paragraph from the bottom:"... suggestions for improving (the format for the final rounds) are welcome." So not only to they apparently not, repeat not, make rules/interpretations compulsory in all American competitions, they give full freedom of choice in the heats of major tournaments they organize themselves, and welcome suggested improvements for the finals. --J.B. HOOD THE NASAMW RESPONDS As President of the North American Society of Ancient and Medieval Wargamers I find it necessaryto respond tothe recent criticism of our group published inTHE COURIER. I would prefer to address the problems of individuals by direct correspondence, which I have done, but many of our more satisfied members have urged me to set the record straight in print. I feel safe in saying that I speak for most of the NASAMW membership on the following points: 1. The NASAMW sponsors several ancient miniature tournaments for its members each year, using WRG 7th Edition with our own "house rules". These games are open to anyone and our interpretations, clarifications and army lists are available, free of charge, upon request. We do not mandate their use at local or regional events and in fact encourage the use of alternate rules sets. In years past, my predecessor, Kruse Smith, made most of the decisions as to what "house rules" would be in force at our various events but he decided, last spring, to put before the membership all future "changes" in the form of a ballot, which was published in our newsletter. Strangely, it was this much improved method of determining and communicating "house rules" for which we have been most criticized. 2. There is no question that Kruse and I "dropped the ball" in not keeping Phil Barker up to date on our proposals but we operated under the impression that he was not interested in making further changes. Mr. Barker had just published a revised edition in Novemberof 1987, which varied little from the original, and appeared to be his final word. I n retrospect, our rules committee, of which I was chairman at the time, should have contacted Phil for his input and for this omission I apologize. I have written to Mr. Barker in hope that we can work together on future rules matters and plan to discuss this with him when he visits the U.S. in February. 3. The results of our general membership vote indicated that most of us felt WRG 7th was unbalanced, in some respects, and in need of additional revision. Evidently Phil thought so as well since just after our ballot was put in his hands, an "official errata" appeared which contained sweeping changes and addressed most of our concerns. We have always preferred Phil Barker's sanction and when presented in writing, have always adopted his errata for use in our events. In the past, North American garners have been left to theirown local understanding of the rules oran expensive telephone call to Phil for clarification, and it was this lack of consistency which motivated the NASAMW to write our own interpretations for use at our tournaments. 4. There is no question that head-to-head competition can be intense, no matter if the game is tennis, chess or micro-armor. Anytime a group of individuals get togetherto determine, through a process of elimination, an eventual "champion", the possibility of conflict arises. When a small group gets together for an event that possibility is practically nil, since most of the players are friends and the umpire can more easily intervene before tempers flair. When a larger gathering, such as ourtoumaments, takes place, there is afar greaterlikelihood of the "win at all costs" player causing a disturbance, especially when the umpire is occupied across the room. Since this rarely happens, contrary to the second-hand information provided by our critics, an enjoyable time is had by all. The NASAMW does not recommend tournament competition for everyone and in fact, many of our members find other aspects of ancient gaming more appealing. At the major conventions we have always offered alternatives such as scenario battles and introductory games for those so inclined. The NASAMW is continuing to improve at a difficult time, with new officers, by-laws and the absence of our founder, Kruse Smith. We hope that with better communication and participation most ancient gamers will understand that this is a slow process and that we can never please everyone. The attacks launched at us recently, particularly those based on unreliable sources, serve no constructive purpose and only add to the task at hand. We would hope that those who want to tell us howto run our events would at least attempt to get the facts before expressing their opinions in print. --JIM HILL, President, NASAMW AND FROM PHIL BARKER My original sources forthe suggestion that NASAM W intended the flawed amendments that they had kept secret from the author to be used in all WRG 7th Edition convention wargaming were dissident members and ex-members of NASAMW. It has now been confirmed by letters from Mr. Jim Hill, President of NASAMW, who should know, and by section G3 of the NASAMW bylaws which he was kind enough to send me. He also informs me that 80°/ of those who voted of his 300 members approved of one or more of the 14 amendments offered, but that 10 could not command a sufficient majority. If I had had the opportunity to point out the flaws before the voting, I believe none would have been. I estimate from sales that there are some 5,000 U.S. 7th Edition players. I don't see why a tiny minority should prevent them from using the rules they bought as the author intended. --PHIL BARKER LOOKING FOR KNIGHT DESIGNS BOXED ARMIES I am curious if you could give me the address or phone number of a company in the U.S that can supply me with the "Knight Designs" boxed armies. The telephone number of ASP Imports listed in issue #VII-3 is either wrong or outdated and they are unlisted in the local directory assistance listing. (Disconnected! - ED) I would appreciate any information you could possibly give me regarding this. Thanks. --S. LEDFORD, Granada Hills, CA Anyone with info on Knight Designs or on ASP-please write to The Courier, P.O. Box 1878, Brockton, MA 02403. Thanks. - ED MAJ. GEN. B.P. HUGHES TO G. NAFZIGER I was very much interested in your article in The Courier, "An Historical Perspective on the Use of Napoleonic Artillery". I have been trying for years to discover from the French how, if at all, they used their "grandes batteries" efficiently. It seems to me that a command structure running right through the battery would have been essential to cope with the problem of distribution of fire, while the observation and correction of fall of shot would also have been required. I can get no answer out of anyone, though there is a small booklet on Sennarmont which suggests that he was aware of those problems. You attribute the piecemeal use of units from a reserve of British artillery to Wellington. While you are absolutely right in assuming that the great man had a finger in every pie, do not forget Colonel Sir Augustus Frazer. He had worked hard to create such a reserve in the later stages in Peninsula, formed one for Waterloo, and used it exactly as you say in close conjunction with the Duke as two minds with the same thought. While I am writing, have you any idea how it was that counter battery fire with SBML guns suddenly became a profitable operation in the middle of the 19th Century, e.g., at Gujerat and Inkerman? I mentioned this in Open Fire pg. 112 et seq. -- B.P. HUGHES, Royal Artillery Inst., Woolwich, England Back to Table of Contents -- Courier Vol. VIII No. 5 To Courier List of Issues To MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1989 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