Some comments on your review, which I by-and-large agree with: "The fog of war effect can be important though I felt it was historically much less important here. I doubt the Scots were often unaware of where King Edward was, but in this game they seem unable to pick up any information about who is in the feudal levy (despite the long period it took to assemble this force)." During the Falkirk campaign, Edward I was completely unaware for days that the entire Scottish army was but 12 or so miles away.  The Scots, likewise, were unsure of Edward's exact whereabouts in several campaigns when he split his forces into two or more camps.  Nor were the Scots particularly well informed about numbers.  The best intelligence available typically was "a lot of foot, a reasonable amount of horse, and a supply train a mile long." While that information my not always be well represented by a wall of blocks, it's not that far off the mark. "The Scots have ... two rather dodgy counters. The first of these (French knights) is questionable, but the second (a Norse fleet) is a silly joke - we use it as a turn marker." Sigh ... agreed.  Tom D. blocks one and all, however, so what can you do? "The game also had a pack of rather dowdy cards ...." Again, agreed. "The rules are short but really need to be tidied up again (there is a version 1.1 on the Internet) as some points (who is attacker for example) seem unanswered and the replacement mechanism is found only in an example. Some points are hidden in the right-hand column that sometimes is just notes and on others is a great deal more. As a general view you will find you miss a lot of key points from these rules so keep re-reading them." I agree with you regarding the initial rules.  There have been two drafts since then.  The latest, labeled version 1.2 (which I think is really 1.3!) is available on the CG webpage.  It's also included in all the games purchased today.  I think the product now is pretty crisp and complete. "We usually require both sides to play their cards together though I am not sure that the game does." The game sure does! "Can losses in Round One affect reserves? I did not spot the answer." The answer is no.  If your blocks engaged in round 1 are killed, your blocks in the reserve retreat if possible into adjacent areas without a scratch or the need to get shot at.  Of course, if all adjacent areas are occupied by the enemy, those retreating reserves all die. "There are some silly "Celtic Unity" rules that result in Irish and Welsh having to test before battle. Since the lowland Scots were predominantly Angles I suspect this is one for the emigré Scots audience. I believe it is based on an actual event but is far too regular. We do not use the rule." In retrospect, the rule is probably too fiddly and not important enough to justify the fiddliness.  Accordingly, it should probably go.  This bit of chrome, however, was my idea, not Tom's.  It reflects the fact that thousands of Welsh archers mutinied the night before Falkirk and nearly went over to the Scottish side!  Edward I held them back at the beginning of the battle the next day because he didn't trust them.  When he finally employed them after the Scottish schiltroms had fought the English knights to a stand-still, they were devastatingly effective (as the movie suggests). Still, Edward never again drew heavily from his Welsh force pool because the experience soured him permanently on the reliability of Celtic troops in Scotland.  In fact, I favoured a rule which said a roll of x meant they retreated prior to battle and a roll of y meant they dial-down 1 CV on each block and then defect to the Scots at the outset of battle!  Tom thought that this was too drastic, but you can argue for it from an historical perspective and perhaps use it to defang the English in this game a bit. While no such event occured with the Irish (the movie's depiction of Irish defection was for the benefit of Irish-Americans I warrant), the Bruce was related to the Earl of Ulster (whose troops that block represents) and his loyalties was never entirely clear.  While he never went into open rebellion against either Edward I or II, there were times he pretty much ignored orders when convenient for Bruce's cause.  Interestingly enough, the Earl of Ulster - despite one-and-off campaigning in Scotland for years - never happened to find himself in battle.  I'll bet that's not a coincidence. "Losing the Comyns to the English (they live in the far north) projects power into a region usually free of the Tailed Ones so I doubt the Bruce's chances [for the crown] (especially as he will more likely be an English noble anyway as Annan and Carrick are within the English sphere)." Yes, this is a problem, but I don't know exactly what to do about it.  While the Scottish player - if he has the option - would clearly prefer a Comyn King, he may not have that option in the game.  That is, if the English control Comyn while the Scottish player has the requisite 8 nobles, if he doesn't crown who he has on hand (say, Bruce), he runs the risk of not having the requisite 8 nobles and control of Fife when he does manage to liberate Comyn from the English yolk.  Another potentially rich strategic dilemma in the game.  Perhaps it should be left alone - for political purposes, Comyn was in fact the bigger force in Scottish politics than was Bruce.  The struggle for control of Comyn should probably be a more important struggle than the fight for control over de Brus. "There some odd effects here ... the English care little for losses except to "their" nobles and the infantry (unless doing an over-wintering). Other units will simply be rebuilt during the Winter Phase." As it probably should be.  Despite the debacle at Stirling, for instance, only 40 English knights were lost that day.  The few who did not live to return of their own volition to England (that is, those that were captured) were ransomed back in relatively short order.  Archer losses likewise proved to be easily replaceable (lots of manpower back in England and Wales for that).  It's pretty sobering to note that, even after the slaughter at Bannockburn, Edward II was able to march back into Scotland only a couple of years later with an even larger army than had lost the field in 1314. "Did the English put a full Feudal Levy into operation every year (or every other year plus an army over-wintering)? I don't think do, but as I mentioned the successful importation of the elements of medieval warfare may not generate a correct story line as campaigns tended to wax and wane due to other issues." This rule was indeed a compromise, but I think it still works pretty well. Think of the feudal levy draw as the manpower that MIGHT be available that year.  In reality, they aren't necessarily "encamped" in northern England (the comprimise part), which probably deters the Scots more than should be the case from rampaging into northern England during "down" English years. But the card draw effectively prohibits the English from going north in force every single year.  When we playtested this, the cards effectively did what the old "Feudal Levy" card did - it prevented major English campaigns about half the time.  This is about right during Edward I's reign, but is probably a bit too generous during Edward II's kingship.  Playbalance issues, however, demanded that we not hurt the English chances any further during the Bruce Scenario, so we left the matter alone. "Edward certainly did not over-winter (that is have a long campaign) as many times as he may in the game." True, but there's a risk to "over-wintering" with a small force.  First, no reinforcements are available the next year.  Second, you may not find yourself with enough manpower to protect the crucial Edward I block.  So while I agree that, in a perfect world, there should be some other hurdle for the English to cross to enable Edward I to overwinter (the presence of at least two full-strength knight blocks perhaps), it's not that far out of whack.  In fact, since Consim-World HAMMER players report that the English are winning more often than not in this game, such a rule might well serve a dual purpose of balancing the game a bit as well (with the Welsh defection rule also coming into play here). I have no objections, by the way, if you use my comments in your article, magazine, or in any other venue you wish. Hammer of The Scots: Game Review Back to Perfidious Albion #103 Table of Contents Back to Perfidious Albion List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 2004 by Charles and Teresa Vasey. 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