1988 was a topsy-turvy year for the NASAMW. After years of trying, hearing complaints, and promising to do something, we finally proposed some changes to the "most heavily playtested set of rules", WRG 7th Edition. And just when we finally get some mechanism in place to do something, everyone screams about touching this inviolate set of rules. On the surface, it looks like we tried to radically overhaul the rules. I think we probably did do too much too soon. But consider this: of the 14 changes PROPOSED, only three passed, in a vote taken in accordance with the bylaws. It takes approval by 2/3 of those voting to pass a rule change. Only 3. These rule changes are: elephants always rally forward; non-impetuous cavalry or camels car. break off if all their opponents fail to recoil or break; EHI/SHI can move 40 paces without taking a fatigue point. Is this so radical? What I find very ironic, is the new set of "official WRG erratta"• It is amazing how many of the same areas we proposed changes for, WRG went ahead and made changes. Admitedly they are not the same changes, but they are aimed at the same problems. I wonder how many people who blasted the Society for "tampering" with WRG 7th will fall over themselves accepting the official rule amendments As for copyright infringement, since we are not publishing for profit or taking something and printing it in our name, we are not in violation of US copyright laws (in a broad sense). Every set of miniature rules used in all periods are always modified by the user yet I hear no one screaming about that. There might be an ethical problem with what we tried to do, but there is not a legal one. Anyway, if our efforts, in part, cause WRG to amend one set of rules over time to keep pace with Worldwide efforts to institute changes,, isn't that preferable to a whole new edition every four years? I understand people's hesitance about outright rule changes. Yet I've heard nothing but complaining for over 10 years about WRG inadequacies and why can't we (Americans) do something about it. No, instead we hang on WRG's every word hoping for divine guidance. Until 7th edition "amendments", we never had any. In my opinion, until the ancients wargaming world, finally got it in gear to try and change things, nothing would have happened. One might argue this point but the cause and effect are plain to see Every other year or so the usual cry about competitive ancients players is heard. It has been about two years since the last outcry. The very nature of ancients tournaments is competitive. The "normal" miniature wargamer is naturally taken aback at the sight of a typical ancients tourney. I think that ancients attracts the more competitive (and over-competitive) gamer. That in itself makes the tourney look worse than it really is. At Historicon 88, we had over 60 people it the tournament; over 1/3 were nominated by their fellow players for the Sportsman Award. That is a new high. Why are we seeing such in upswing in good-natured gaming while people are still harping on the over-competiveness of ancientsf Obviously these persons are not attending the same conventions I attend. Yes, the stereotype hyper-competitive rule-lawyering player still exists and will always exist. Unfortunately the rest of wargaming judges us on that person and not the majority of those who play. Also, remember that tournament ancients players make up only aproximately 20:5 of the total ancients population. The Society does not claim to have any monopoly on ancient wargaming in this country; what we do does not effect the casual player. Most of what we want to do is try and establish on overall set of interpretations (not rule changes). Let's face it, WRG 7th is played many different ways because of the ambiguity of certain rules. We want to ease that problem, somewhat. Also, we spend lots of effort updating the army lists. This project is done to insure better accuracy of lists, NOT create super-armies for the tounament monster. Most persons involved are not competitive garners; we have no axe to grind. I hope that more Society members try and get involved instead of griping. At least gripe to the officers directly. Unless we get input from the membership, we act the best way we can as we see things. Feel free to write me at 4346 Rolling Stone Way, Alexandria VA 22306. Also if you are interested, you can join for 010 a year. Our newletter SPEARPOIN,T is published 6 times a year; you receive it when you join. Thank's for the plug, Hall  PART TWO FROM SCOT HOLDER Received your invitation to respond to Terry's "errant comments". As a courtesy I am sending him a copy of my response. Thanks for giving me equal air time. Here goes. The issue of rule changes within the U.S. ancient wargamer community is very emotional, as you can tell by Terry's letter. Unfortunately, many good things the NASAMW has tried to do for ancients are now being used as ammunition against us (meaning NASAMW officers, committee members, and anyone else our critics care to pick). First of all, no one in the NASAMW's ruling body was self appointed. We were nominated as per the bylaws. Unfortunately, the three of us ran unopposed. Why was that? No one is beating down our doors trying to do our job. If they were, people like Terry should have run for office. Instead, critizism abounds. The words "self-styled" do not apply. If you do not like what is happeninig at the moment, you should have thought of that when you had your chance earlier in 1988 to run for office or nominate others. The reason for this is general apathy As for the idea behind rule changes, of the hard-core tournament players in the NASAMW (these are the ones who usually express an opinion on something), they are broken down into three types: 1. Those who desire rule changes 2. Those who do not 3. Those who do not care In my experience as an umpire and poll taker over the last two years, the first two groups are about equally split while the last group is probably the largest. I've heard many from this third group wonder why the anti-rule, change crowd is so loud and political. There opinion is that they just want to play. This group is flexible (or apathetic) enough to go along with what happens. Again, the anti-change fringe element does not have a monopoly o "just want to play". What are we, the elected ruling body, to do? We cannot be all things to all people. What we tried to do was be fair when it came to change by instituting a 2/3 vote needed for rule passage. That is why only three of the fourteeen proposed changes were passed. Only three. In retrospect we tried to do too much too soon. We learned from our mistakes and are taking a much more cautious approach to the rules across the board. Why is that fact lost on people? The statement that there is a strong pro-change fringe element is thus moot. There is an equally strong fringe element (very loud as you can tell) that is against rule changes. Most tournament garners I know want a better more clearly defined set of rules. My motivation has nothing to do with "dickering" with existing rules to get the most out of my favorite armies. I don't even play competitively for crying out loud. Here's an ironic note: of the three elected NASAMW officers, only one plays in tournaments and he has not won a NASAMW tourney in over two years. I guess we are doing such a good job of dickering with the rules we cannot even win. our rule changes are not prejudicial or arbitrary. I played with all of the fourteen proposed changes for more than six months (about 24 games) before I voted. The sad fact is that WRG 7th is not uniformly played in the U.S.. The idea that players all over use a homogenous set of rules is a myth. People from all over have their little pet interpretations about the numerous vague areas in the rules. Part of my job, and the Society's job, is do decrease the chance of suprise at a tournament. What everybody forgets is that all of us have played at tournaments and have been suprised by interpretations. Uniformity is what is greatly desired by most tourney players. It's funny, Terry has told me he thought I was a good impartial umpire the one and only time he played under me. Now don't you think I'd try to put that same impartial concept forward when dealing with rule changes and interpretations. Since I don't play competitively, I have no axe to grind. The implication in Terry's letter is that the NASAMW is not for "fairness and competition". Again, very untrue. That is why we try to implement or at least publish some interpretations ahead of time in order to give everyone an equal chance to digest the issues. I have never been accused of favoritism. When that becomes widespread, I will quit. I bend over backwards to be fair. Again, I take that into my work with the NASAMW. In the past when Kruse Smith was the one man show, interps and some changes were stuck in at the last minute for a tournament, but was never done in the spirit that Terry implies. Under my tenure as Chief Umpire, that will not happen. One of the NASAMW's most favorably received efforts has been in the army list area. Terry is very misleading about our BOOK I revisions. They have been available for over 1 1/2 years and most players like the change. The WRG research staff (if there is one) does not have a monopoly on the ability to conduct research. Most of our critisism from well-meaning players is that we do not produce book revisions FAST ENOUGH. As always, BOOK I is available to NASAMW members free of charge. All they have to do is write. All the people who do work in the NASAMW put in lots of time and money to give fairness and competition for ancient wargaming. Other individuals do not have a monopoly on that or on being prima donnas. My understanding of the Phil Barker tourney at the HMGS February Convention is that it is of a "less intense" nature. I think that is great. The NASAMW stopped doing these a little over a yearr ago because of lack of interest. We would only get 4 or 5 people for each scale, not nearly enough to provide a decent tournament. We also found some pretty intense people playing in these events. Instead we started running demonstration games for beginners away from the ancients play area. At HISTORICON 88 we had over 20 people participate in our two demos, much more interest than in the "less intense" tourney bracket we used to run. Don't get me wrong, if you want that type of play (and there is a need for this), by all means play with Mr. Barker. I think his presence is good for ancients garners. But remember that Mr. Barker will be here once (unless the organizers _. can afford to ship him over here 6-10 times a year) but the NASAMW will still be around slogging away trying to help. I notice no one beating down my door offering to step in or replace me. After reading letters like Terry's, I wish someone would, It sounds like the two of us could not be put in the same room. Quite the contrary, Terry remains in the Society and has an opinion I respect. We corrospond cordially. Beneath the overstatement and hyperbole of his letter, there is one real opinion: no rule changes. As an officer I respect that and try to abide by it but also weigh the wishes of other members. I wish others would be like him, respectful opposition unwilling to quit or bolt somewhere else when things don't go entirely their way. In closing, Mr. Barker's letter in the recent Courier raises some interesting questions about the Society's role in ancient rules. I admit he is right about one thing: this Society must act as a forum to discuss the rules vis a vis interpretations and changes. In fact, one of our interpretations (which should have been considered a change) was adopted by Mr. Barker. So I guess our work does have some positive sides. My column in SPEARPOINT on rule interpretations will hopefully serve that function: to let ancient players know about some of WRG's pitfalls and ambiguities and how we feel about them. In a public forum, feedback is desired and necassary. Hopefully Mr. Barker will use my column to issue DEFINITIVE statements on what he means. Again, I do not care how it goes just as long as it is right. Are you listening Phil? I want guidance!  FROM TERRY GORE Scott Holder did me the courtesy of sending me a copy of his letter to MWAN written in response to my 'open letter' of last issue. I would like to briefly comment. This whole controversy thing has been blown all out of proportion. To me and others, the whole matter is one of what is right (or ethical) and what is wrong. I'm sorry, Scott, but you are wrong. I wonder what Scotty Bowden would think if at a National Convention, the particular event using EMPIRE III was organized by a group with it's own rules changes, to be ruled mandatory and enforced by 'bylaws' and 'officials'. I can't understand the stand NASAMW has taken in this, much leas why they will not admit that a mistake has been made and back off. I just like to play a fun game, as do many others but the prevailing tone of NASAMW tournaments, it seems to me, leaves out the 'fun' aspect. Scott says he'd like to play once in awhile,' too, okay, fine.., then why all of this nonsense with the rules? Scott, I don't care if only one rule change made the necessary 2/3 vote to be 'in', it's still wrong. Don't you think that something is strange when only 1/3 of SPEARPOINT's subscribers thought enough to even vote for what (I hope) many correctly perceived as an unethical attempt by NASAMW to change WRG 7th? Scott, ge back into playing instead of spending so much time organizing and having meetings. As to the 'new' army lists: I don't like required lists, period. To me, they're useful to garners just starting out or to players who don't have the time or facilities to do research for their own armies, but to require them, I've never liked. It takes away half of the fun of research and discovery. In our SAGA tournaments, any player submitted researched and documented list is fine, includinK NASAMW ones as long as the presenter can provide documentation, sources and bibliography. You also do a bit to eliminate the chess-player mentality by opening things up a bit, but only in a friendly, fun atmosphere would this be possible. The highly competitive nature of NASAMW's nationals would certainly open up a Pandora's Box if this were allowed, I'm surel I'm rapidly becoming tired of the bickering about this whole affair and the sooner it's resolved, the better. Scott, come on up here to Rochester in March and we'll have a game... a friendly one! (Editor's Note: I don't pretend to know enough about this, situation so as to know clearly what is happening although I would like to see it resolved as it does not serve our small hobby well for us to be strongly disagreeing about toy soldiers I would take exception with one thing my friend Terry said re Scott getting 'hack into playing instead of spending so much time organizing and having meetings". I don't believe Terry really means this as I am sure he knows from his experience of publishing SAGA, an Ancients newsletter which I greatly enjoy, that we need people who publish; people who get out and organize groups and run meeting&; and people who play games on the tabletop. I think it would be nice if we saw some sort of 'closure' in this matter within the next few issues of MWAN so that people who have been following it aren't going to have a bad taste in their mouths about the problem. It would set a good example if it could be resolved and everyone could see that something positive came out of individuals expressing their opinions in print. What about it, gentlemen?). Back to MWAN # 38 Table of Contents Back to MWAN List of Issues Back to MagWeb Magazine List © Copyright 1989 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