1. In last month's issue, I named several people who, I thought, made a truly unique contribution to miniatures wargaming in terms of the procedures and techniques used on the table-top. Bob Wiltrout mentioned an additional name whose contribution is significant, yet of whom I knew nothing. Terry Griner, says Bob, is a fella who, in the early seventies, came up with the idea of the unit morale level decreasing as unit casualties increase. The thought is so basic and so clever that it never crossed my mind that it had to be invented. 2. Chris Kemp gave me an article on what he terms "matrix gaming" an issue or so ago. This appears to be a "talky" sort of procedure, employing a dialogue between the participants. The umpire lists a background set of facts which Chris calls a "matrix", and the players call out what they want to happen and use the factual background to support their conventions. I don't fully understand the process, because, in several examples of play I've seen, many of the reasons tabulated in support of the positions taken seem to have absolutely nothing to do with the propositions under discussion. But then, I'm a slow learner. "Matrix gaming" would seem to be the sort of thing that the Wargame Development Group (WDG) in England would do. Chris also sent me his publication from the Experimental Game Group (EGG) ... I gather his intent is to establish the US equivalent of the MG. The EGG publication focuses, of course, on Chris' current efforts in matrix gaming. The one thing on which I must comment concerning the EGG publication is the reference to the REVIEW as a "mag." In truth, he refers to more than one "mag," but I'll let the other editors beat their own drums. The word(?) "mag" rates right alongside that of "zine", neither of which is a term of art, both falling into the same classification as the expression "grody to the max". Am I too sensitive as I slip gracefully into my declining years? 3.In this issue I've outlined some ideas on rules for modern armor. The term "modern" to me encompasses the period from just before World War II to the present. One big hodge-podge of guns and missiles and automatic weapons and tanks and aircraft. This, I realize, is as bad as the WRG Ancients rules' span which ranges from one zillion B.C. to the pre- medieval era. I offer no excuse at present; I'm working hard on one and will present it when appropriate. Some of the procedures outlined in the article worked quite well and will be picked up in future rules sets; other procedures will be dropped - have been dropped - quite rapidly. 4. I mentioned the "gastrophetes" some issues back, and Bob Cairo wrote, explaining just what it was: "... a very early form of crossbow developed by the Greeks. It consisted of a lower stock with an attached bow and an upper slide which was pressed down by body weight to cock the weapon... The weapon was supposedly very accurate but very unwieldy for field use." 5. A thought on pre-game procedures. I've noted that at games presented at the conventions, the fella hosting the game will go into a detailed, time consuming talk on the rules, the melee procedures, how to fire, when to test morale, when to change formtion, etc. I've also noted that, in the min, the participants tend to ignore the speaker; they seem to regard the talk as a necessary evil preliminary to the umpire shouting: "Go!" The reason I bring this up is that the other day, Fred Hubig presented an ancients game at my house and treated us to a 20 minute pre-game lecture on the content of the rules. The rules were unique and in some aspects, quite complex and interesting... this didn't, however, prevent Bob Hurst from fidgeting, Fred Haub from falling asleep, Brian Dewitt from going to the men's room, nor me from consistently whispering: "Let's go! Let's go! " I would note that the reason I confined my comments to a whisper is that Fred Hubig is a foot and a half taller than I am, much wider, and outreaches me by about 12 inches. The Simon technique of game presentation is to tell the participants as little as possible before the game starts. My theory is that they are, at that tine, all hopped up and ready to go and not at all interested in the nitty-gritty of the rules, they won't retain ten percent of what you tell them, and they will only ask silly questions about minor points in the rules system. I tend to give as little Pre-gae information as possible, especially so at conventions, where the noise level is extremely distracting. The basic set of instructions the participants receive is: "Keep moving your infantry 8 inches, your cavalry 12, and when you want to fire or come into contact with an enemy unit, tell me and I'll go through the procedures." Most of the time, this works. If any of you out there have other thoughts... write in. 6. Dick Bryant, editor of THE COURIER, called early in the month. He had just received the August REVIEW and had two bones to pick with me. First, I had stated that Leo Cronin was "one half" of THE COURIER, whereas, in truth, said Dick, he was one third. The missing party was Joe Micelli, who maintains an extremely low profile and does the layout work for the magazine. I stand corrected; the triumvirate of Dick, Leo and Joe shall live forever in the pages of the REVIEW. The second issue concerned my comment to the effect that I had met a "real" editor, a reference to my meeting with Duncan McFarlane, editor of WARGANES ILLUSTRATED. "And what am I, chopped liver?" was the gist of Mr. Bryant's remarks. Despite a ready retort, I did not reply. I did note that Dick refrained from calling the REVIEW a "zine", nor did he term it a "mag", for which I shall be forever grateful. And I shall choose to forget his reference to a "rag", hoping that it was but a momentary slip of the tongue. 7. Careful fellow that I am, I wrote, in reviewing past REVIEWs, that the rate of typos has increased drastically. I sit here, priding myself on my correct spelling and use of the language, twittering away at the poor grammar used by the other guy, and then... SOCKO! ... I read last month's REVIEW and I'm appalled at the mistakes I've made, unnoticed 'till now. What to do? (For some reason, no disgruntled readers have brought this to my attention... but I feel that the axe will soon fall... ) 8.In this issue, I've included a brief review of GDW's new publication, based on what is termed "...a melding of science fiction with the colonial adventurism of the Victorian Era." The book deals with the "what-if" world, in this instance, what could have happened if the turn-of-the-century powers had gone off to Mars and Venus, etc., instead of merely beating on each other on our own planet. I have to disagree with use of the term "science fiction". Science fiction, to me, deals solely with the what-if possibilities of the future, and not of the past, i.e., events that may be extremely unlikely, but because they haven't occurred yet, still have at least a finite, even if infinitesimal, probability of occurrence. The GDW book is "science fantasy", if only because we know it didn't happen. I also realize that GDW would want to avoid use of the term "fantasy", so as to drive way as few historical miniatures players as possible. Back to PW Review September 1989 Table of Contents Back to PW Review List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1989 Wally Simon 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