It was during the process of adapting Fire and Fury to the Ancient Period that I sent away for the colorful and full-of-goodies rule book designed and developed by the team of Mr. Johnson, Mr. Priestly and the Twins Perry. It would appear that I am still "suffering" from what might be called ADD (Ancients Delight Disorder), in that this brief work represents the third piece submitted for review and possible inclusion in the final issue of MWAN Magazine for the 2004 calendar year. (Or, failing to find room in the issue, perhaps this marks the first piece for the new year, and so, provides a little relief from a contributing editor's point of view. Anyway.) The Romans v. Gauls wargame report was a planned project; resulting from, as explained, a single play test of the adapted rules. The subsequent "opinion(s)" outlined in Fusillade were definitely more spontaneous in nature. This final piece concerning matters related to the Ancient Period (again, if accepted by Mr. Perrin for publication) also falls into that general and sometimes frightening category of spontaneous. ("Frightening" only in the sense that it's not planned in any great detail, so I have no concrete idea of where the keyboard will take me or you, the reader. Again, anyway.) During my first read through of the Warhammer Ancient Battles rule book, I "marked" many a margin and "underlined" many a sentence with an orange felt tip pen. On page 12 of these interesting and well-written rules, I actually took a post-it note and flagged the "Charge Responses" sidebar. The subject matter on page 40 did not escape my pen point either. However, it was not until a third reading, along with reading in other sources that the idea for this particular article "popped" into my head. As perhaps suggested by its title, this piece will be short (somewhere in the neighborhood of four pages) in that I only have "two cents" as opposed to $29.95 to "give." By "two cents" I am referring to just two sections of the rules where I have questions, suggestions, or additional remarks. Before jumping right into the material, please allow me to qualify the approach. I have not yet had the pleasure of playing a wargame using the Warhammer Ancient Battles rules. I understand that this admission will "turn off" a number of readers right away, for how can I comment on a rules set if I have not wargamed with it? Well, I have read the book three times and have gone over specific sections more than that. I have also taken the time to review some of the internet material available on these rules. Based on these actions, I feel that I should be able to at least throw in my "two cents." On the other hand, I have not had the "pain" of playing a WAB battle. Correspondence with fellow wargamer Charlie Eckert, of Colorado, brought news of a wargame lasting some 14 hours, not to mention a suspected case of carpal tunnel: the product of throwing lots and lots of six-sided dice. (This correspondence also brought news of yet another set of rules for this period: Warrior Kings. Thanks for enabling my "disorder," Charlie!) However, I have every intention of setting up a wargame using these rules. I've recently completed reading Victor Davis Hanson's outstanding text, Ripples of Battle. The third chapter of this work has me thinking about a hoplite contest; a kind of wargame that I've never played. In conjunction, I have been reading, for the umpteenth time, Wargame Tactics (specifically Chapter 5, "The Battle of Korespsis Pass"), by Charles Grant. This narrative has me drafting similar if smaller orders of battle for the Athenian and Aeotolian commands. I have started work on both forces and I am even now considering how the terrain shall be set out. The "problem" is this: I have resolved to move on to a different theme - or perhaps get away from any kind of theme altogether - in the new year. As correct as my own diagnosis (if with tongue in cheek) of ADD may be, I think I really need to get back to my first period of interest: Horse & Musket. Specifically, Napoleonics. More specifically, the years 1805-1815. Steps in this direction have been taken already. Last week, I purchased the Osprey title: Fuentes de Onoro: Wellington's Liberation of Portugal. My apologies for this unintended digression. Let me return to the present effort. Following then, are my "two cents." The sidebar on page 12 lists four (4) possible responses that a unit may make when faced with a charging enemy unit. In order, these are: Stand & Shoot; Hold; Flee or, Fire & Flee. The yellow post-it has a scribbled note which reads: "What about another option? Counter Charge?!" The provided responses seem simple enough, and true to the multiple readings of this rule book, are well explained. It just struck me as odd that counter charge would not be included on this list. At the moment, I am pressed to provide one, let alone four historical references of troops counter charging an attacking foe. Readers may recall my liking very much the novels by Colleen McCullough about Ancient Rome set during the Republic. (The rise of Marius and of Sulla; the evolution and eventual downfall of Caesar; and, the beginnings of Octavian's rule.) In any one of these books, there are details of battle so descriptive that they almost draw the reader onto the very field or oppida that is being contested. Her obvious ability to write excellent historical fiction aside, I would just think that another option available to a unit being attacked would be to: "draw swords, shout a war cry and run forward at the enemy line." Admittedly, my view might be colored by the historical epics of Mel Gibson, Russell Crowe, Charlton Heston, Kirk Douglas or even Rex Harrison, but I will argue the point until conclusively shown that counter charges did not happen. In the two sets of errata and clarifications / house rules that were printed from the internet (Rules & Errata - Warhammer Historical recommend you use these updates for all your games of Warhammer Ancient Battles, and Totally Unofficial Conventions Clarifications and House rules used in our local games - revised August 2003), 1 could only find this reference to the charge sequence or resolution process: "Cavalry counter charges - the unit also counts as charging for the purposes of Ferocious Charge and Warband rules, as well as for weapons bonuses." Allowing mounted units to counter charge seems perfectly reasonable. The distinction should be made though, between foot charging/counter charging other foot and horse charging /counter charging enemy horse. That is to qualify: if the target of an enemy mounted charge is a foot unit, that foot unit should not be permitted to counter charge. (However, in any given turn, infantry may initiate a charge against the enemy horse and these troopers may then respond in kind.) Counter charging units would not be required to estimate the distance to the attacking, enemy unit, but would simply move double their normal allowance. For example, counter charging Greek Hoplites could move up to a total of eight inches in order to make contact. It seems to me, more often than not, the combined distance would bring both units into close combat. Rolling against leadership value for the counter charge was considered, but only briefly. It seems to me that if the other four choices can be made by the wargamer in that situation, then counter charging should be just as "easy." Although, now that I think about it, taking away some of the "control" from the wargamer might be "fun/interesting." Imagine the consternation if, instead of standing and shooting at the charging enemy, a poor die roll resulted in your unit fleeing? Imagine further, if by fleeing, this unit then initiated a domino-like effect on other units in the line or on that particular flank. "Fun" for the opposing wargamer; not so very much for you. In the rare instance (again, I stipulate to not yet having actually played a wargame with these rules and these "additions") that a charging and counter charging unit fail to meet in melee - the distance between the units being that great, then the counter charging force will be moved its full charge move. However, like its failed enemy, this unit will not be able to use any missile weapons. Additionally, having exhausted itself by running and shouting toward an out-of-range enemy, the counter charging unit will suffer a -I combat modifier on the next turn. This penalty representing the general disorder and time spent redressing the ranks as well as the general fatigue accumulated during the excitement of the counter charge. In brief summary, I am not finding fault with the rules as they are written. This first suggestion is simply the addition of one more possible response to a charge, as originally detailed on page 12 of the rules. The other half of my "two cents" with respect to the Warhammer Ancient Battles rules, concerns the representation, effect and ability of leaders: of both specific unit leaders and those higher up in the chain of command. Four small paragraphs on page 40 of the rule book detail the representation and role of leaders in the Warhammer Ancient Battles wargame. To begin, "Any unit of troops can include a leader model, representing an especially able commander." Not to parse the language too much, but the operative word here is "can." I should think that units (from as small as five models/figures to warbands of 40 figures or more) must have a leader. The musician and "standard bearer" figures are a nice touch, but not as necessary a requirement. The details continue: "The leader model is always placed in the centre of the front rank of his unit. He remains in position throughout the battle, charging, fleeing, fighting and moving along with his unit." In the very last paragraph of this section, leaders, if they are designated to a particular unit, are given almost immortal characteristics. "Leaders are never removed as casualties unless all the ordinary troopers are already slain - a unit's leader is always the last to go down fighting!" In some respects (shades of Custer at The Little Big Horn) this is true, this attribute of unit leaders is "exciting." However, I personally don't find it very historical and therefore, not very realistic. Turning to one of my favorite sources, the McCullough texts, I find this description of the battle around Gergovia in Caesar: Let the Dice Fly: Titus Sextius, in the small camp, brought out the cohorts of the Thirteenth held in reserve, and slowly order came out of chaos. The legions reached camp and left the Gauls in command of the field. Forty-six centurions, most of them in the Eighth, were dead, and close to seven hundred ranker soldiers. A toll which had Caesar in tears, especially when he heard that among the dead centurions were Lucius Fabius and Marcus Petronius of the Eighth; both had died making sure their men survived. (342) Centurions, the leaders of small units of Roman heavy infantry, are not invincible then. I cannot cite the source for the following "fact," but I do recall reading that in his final battle, Spartacus killed two centurions before drowning in the swirling melee. In a work of more scholarship and of less fictional intent, this graphic passage is found on page 220 of The Roman Army at War 100 BC-AD 200, by Adrian Keith Goldsworthy: The Roman infantry helmet invariable left the face and ears exposed, since a soldier had to be able to see and hear to understand and follow orders. The face could have been partially covered by the shield and was protected by the helmet's wide cheek pieces, but might still have been vulnerable to a thrust from a sword or spear. Caesar's centurion, Crastinus, was killed at Pharsalus by a sword thrust that entered his mouth and came out at the back of his head (Plutarch, Caesar 44). The first sentence in this passage is necessary, as I think it helps to set up the second sentence. That second sentence is rather shocking, but again it shows that Centurions < and by extension other unit leaders < were killed or wounded in combat. It could also be argued that I am weighing my examples with only Roman evidence. Perhaps, but I think one would be hard pressed to find written records concerning the number of tribal leaders who were cut down in melee during the conquest of Britain. It seems not illogical to suggest that no matter what state-sponsored army or tribal host is in the field, small unit leaders were in the front line or very close to it; were involved in the brunt of any close combat and, were subject to injury and death just like the average soldier. Indeed, looking at the McCullough "history," it seems in desperate struggles, the leadership of a unit was even more exposed to being cut down in melee. On page 38 of the rules, one of the six (6) circumstances generating a Panic Test is that unfortunate point during a battle when the Army General is slain. Regardless of his location and distance from any one unit, the Panic Test must be taken by all units in the Army. Immediately. Adapting this concept to the lower echelons of the command structure, it seems to me that it might be reasonable to apply the Panic Test rule for any unit which loses its leader < either by missile fire or in melee. Of course, this requires that virtual immortality be taken away from every small unit leader. While these commanders are exceptional and earn an extra attack die for the unit, they are not invulnerable. They are not, each and every one of them, George Armstrong Custer. In other words, the last to fall. (Yes, this is the popular history and I do understand that there exists debate about the order in which troopers of the 7th died that day. But I was trying to make a point and he, Custer (thinking about the Errol Flynn movie here [They Died With Their Boots On] seemed a perfect example.) Would this rule modification complicate the game? Well, that remains to be seen. As I mentioned, I have not yet had the opportunity (or time) to set up a wargame. I would suggest that small unit leader representation, their "early death" in combat and the subsequent Panic Test roll for just that one unit so affected, would not overly complicate the game. (What would an extra die roll be in the midst of dozens?) In this revision, one might well find a friendly unit victorious in melee, but suffering the loss of their commander just as the enemy is broken. In the ensuing roller-coaster ride of emotion (winning the fight, losing their leader) the friendly unit takes a Panic Test, one perhaps modified by various other factors. The die roll might be "harder" in that the leadership value of a leaderless unit would be a little lower on the l - 12 scale than that value for a unit with the leader still standing in the ranks. What might complicate matters is trying to develop some kind of "alternate command / leader" system or process whereby, if the main leader of a unit goes down under arrow shower or in melee, then an alternate automatically steps in to take his place. The Panic Test would still be taken, however. But the impacted unit would not operate as completely "leaderless." To be sure, the leadership value would be a little less than it was with the original commander. Another option might be to move and attach higherechelon commanders to the leaderless unit. Although, in close fought engagements, it seems that one might run out of such replacements rather quickly. Looking higher up the command ladder, it was a bit confusing to review the Army Generals section on page 43 of the rule book. The "reach" of command influence and impact on friendly forces should he be forced to run away were clear enough. I think it would have helped to have a reference here to the Panic Test required upon the death of said general figure. But this is more of an issue over formatting. Anyway. With respect to the immediate Panic Test, I think it might be more "interesting" to have the demise of the general produce a "ripple effect" on troops under his command. That is to suggest, on the turn that he perishes, all units within 12 inches would be required to take that Panic Test. On the next turn (the very next turn in the game and not just this same player's next turn), another 12 inches is measured out and any units within this "ripple" also take the Panic Test. The very next turn, the process is repeated. The overall effect is similar to what the authors of these rules describe: that the death of a general was a significant event on the ancient battlefield. The graduation of 12 inch "ripples" from the point where the "stone was dropped into the still surface of the command pond," provides for more of a well ... "ripple effect." The apparent arbitrary command radius of 12 inches got me to thinking, too. (Not always a good thing, I will admit.) In the Roman Army List provided in the rule book, two other, lesser officers are described in addition to the overall army commander or general. Stipulating to the relative complexity of the command structure of the Roman military system, what would be the impact of rating the army general, and of perhaps, allowing a command radius for the lesser officers? For example, let us say that in a scenario, Pompey the Great is in overall command. It seems to me that he might have a "reach" or influence that is a little farther than 12 inches. It also seems to me that he would add some kind of modifier to the leadership rolls of units within his command radius. If the Roman commander is Julius Caesar, well then, the command radius is quite a bit more and the positive modifier ... well, this is open to debate, but we might start out with a "plus 3" at the very least. Turning back to the Army List, one finds that the Senior and Junior officers of a Roman force can exercise direct command if attached to a unit. What if these officers were given a command radius instead? What if the Legate could "command" units within let's say, six inches, and the Tribune could "command" units within three inches? What if, as well, these officers were given command ratings like "bold," "average," or "poor?" Would these rule additions complicate the game? Once again, this remains to be seen. Over this past year, I have done a number of projects involving Romans. To do another project with the legions utilizing Warhammer Ancient Battles rules has a certain appeal. However, I have the impression that the scale of the wargame might be limited. I gravitate toward battles like Cannae and Cynoscephalae. I am not certain how well engagements of this size would come off with these rules. As I mentioned previously, current reading has given me a couple of ideas with respect to a hoplite engagement. I think this project might be of a more suitable scale to serve as an introduction to the rules. Here too, I would be able to try out my "two cents" worth of ideas about counter charging and the importance of small unit leaders. My apologies to the reader, it appears that my "promised" four, short pages have run over into something like six pages. Leaving out the citations from scholarly work and texts of historical fiction, I am sure that the original goal could have been met. (Paring down my all too frequent use of parenthetical thoughts would have kept the page count within its intended limit, too.) However, these extended quotes serve as evidence which supports my suggestion, idea and contention that each unit in a Warhammer Ancient Battles wargame have a designated leader. And, that this designated leader be subject to the same risks as those endured by the men under his command on the ancient battlefield. (And sorry, but I rather like using the parenthesis or brackets keys.) My thoughts on the rules governing the higher-echelon leaders run along the same line. It is curious that army generals can fall under a thrown spear or a slashed sword in these rules, with subsequent deleterious effects. Whereas the leader of a small unit < more often than not embroiled in the rugby scrum of a melee is possessed with almost magical powers that deflect both spear and sword. (To adapt the title of a reality show that was watched for about 10 minutes and then I could not find the remote fast enough to change channels, this leader is "The Last Centurion Standing.") The first penny of these "two cents" concerned the apparent oversight of not permitting units to counter charge an enemy if they themselves, were being attacked. The material pulled from the internet attempted to address this, but I don't think it did at all, really. Of course, there is always the chance that I have not done enough research on these perceived "problem areas." I am curious to see what response or criticism these pages generate. I hold out some hope that a reader or readers will direct me to a source addressing my "concerns" about these two small sections within the Warhammer Ancient Battles rule book. I hold out some hope too, that this article will result in my continued schooling about the pluses and minuses of wargaming with Warhammer Ancient Battles. My "two cents" is based on about a year of reading, research, thinking and wargaming dedicated to the Ancient Period. It might be added that my "two cents" is also influenced by about 15 years spent in "pursuit" of this specialized hobby. A miniscule investment, if I may continue the monetary theme, but one that has more than returned a profit. Time and time again. Back to MWAN # 132 Table of Contents Back to MWAN List of Issues Back to MagWeb Magazine List © Copyright 2004 Legio X This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com