Being co-editor of SAGA gives me maybe a strange view of the Ancients/Medieval field of wargaming. Before becoming involved with the newsletter, I, like many others, had pne to an occasional convention to check out the state of gaming (meaning the competition in the WRG tournaments). Usually content to simply go and watch, I managed to get up the courage and faith in myself as well as my army and actually sort of play ... once or twice. Since we started SAGA, we've heard from many gamers who not only hate the whole tournament set-up, but think it's riddled with slanted army list opponents; foolish match-ups of totally non-historical nations, much less eras. Thus, many gamers have quit going to the conventions for tournament play. This, to me, is not a good sign. Further alienation and graying of the hobbyists we don't need. We also don't need the attitude I read in so many letters about the dissatisfaction with published rules and antipathy for uniformity of play. As I've gone on record as stating before, the Ancients period is virtually the only wargaming field in miniatures which has a tournament structure that WRG has given us. Where, no matter which convention(s) you attend, if you wish, you can enter your chosen army using your regular rules and play. The Society of Ancients has seen fit to address the situation of army list match-ups by separating early rounds into at least adjacent book list opponents. A further step would be computer matching of historical opponents in early rounds as well. The very hype of wargaming competition throws many potential gamers off. To the contrary, most wargamers are not Rambo-esque braggarts who can't wait to whip the hell out of any and all comers. Most of the ones I've come in contact with are, for the most part, reasonable and willing to accept the umpire's decision without throwing things or punching out everyone in sight. But there is the exception. This type of gamer should be segregated from the rest of the players who wish to enjoy themselves. This is not, after all, a literal fight to the death. It is a test of tactical skill - pure and simple. Everyone in this hobby enjoys a good challenge (I certainly hope!) and why not tone down the psychological and emotional fever and concentrate more on the get together and meet new players approach? Let's face it, we should all stick together in this or we'll be trying to teach our games to non-interested D & D drop-outs in a few years... and I for one can't handle that. The terrain situation also could use a revamping of not only looks, but choice as well. While my co-editor and I disagree on the importance of choosing terrain by each individual participant vrs. pre-set conditions, I believe either could be improved upon. Of course, if using pre-set terrain, there is no excuse for not having the best looking table as is possible. Many gamers have written over the year about the deplorable state of the battlefield when compared to Napoleonics, ACW, ECW or even TSATF set-ups. We don't have to spend a million bucks on terrain but at least some semblance of a bog could be presented instead of river sections with trees! (Yes, I've seen this gem.) The other type of chosen terrain is, of course, impossible to prepare as well as th other, but any type of uniformity would help. One final point -- why not go for a given number of games (say two per player) with the highest total points going to the final round instead of each gamer playing for nine hours on Saturday (and not getting a chance to do much else) and another six or so on Sunday? This would certainly alleviate fatigue while making it possible to match up compatible armies at the same time. Only in the final round would non-historical opponents have to be matched. Back to MWAN # 24 Table of Contents Back to MWAN List of Issues Back to MagWeb Magazine List © Copyright 1986 Hal Thinglum 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