Thomas Coveney

Dear Terry:

Since my current subscription/membership is about ended I thou I would write to you in order to tell you why I will NOT be joining again.

My primary reason for joining Initially was my interest in Medieval and Ancient wargaming and military history. I am sorry to say that, at least as far as I am concerned, neither WRG 6th or 7th edition ancient rules, nor DBA or DBM, or even Tactica (medieval or ancient) rules have anything significantly to do either with wargaming or representing military history in any of the periods covered by a of these rules.

While it would seem that many people find one or more of these rules sets perfectly suitable for Tournament games at conventions, have no interest whatsoever in tournament gaming, either in a club at a convention. I want to fight battles with miniatures which give at least a reasonable replication of some sort of historical activity.

And in this respect none of the rule sets I have mentioned about nor any of the other sets which are also currently available, come even within shouting distance of this goal. Not to mention, that all someone wants is a set of rules to use in a game, then the over convoluted mechanics of all the commercial rule sets do not satisfy this goal either.

So far as I am concerned rules created just for a game should of the length and complexity of either the old sets written by Tony Bath or Don Featherstone years ago, which at least allowed each player to try to out-think his opponent, without having to constantly look through the rules in order to try to find out what was supposed be happening at that point, let alone how to operate the rules.

I have always felt that if the players are spending their time playing to the particular details of the rules rather than trying to determine what strategy or tactic from the period will provide him a chance to win the 'battle', then something is wrong with the rules themselves.

I will give you just one example of what I mean, In terms of the infantry in Ancient and Medieval battles. Because of their use of the Cadenced Beat, except by the Spartans and the Romans starting with Marius, such infantry were almost always confined to a defensive role on the battlefield when faced by any significant numbers of enemy cavalry. Whenever such infantry tried to deliver an tack against an enemy supplied with sufficient numbers of just about anytype of cavalry, either missile, melee, or shock, they would be cut pieces. About the only time infantry could deliver a successful attack was when the cavalry were not yet formed up, such as the Swiss against the Burgundians, or as a counterattack against unsuccessful cavalry attacks, such as the battle of Bannockburn. And even the Swiss had to seriously worry about getting their flanks attacked by organized cavalry, such as against the Spanish or during their early campaigns in northern Italy.

However, I don't expect to convert either you or any significant members of your readers, since they are obviously primarily interested in competition/tournament games, and really don't want to be bothered the real restrictions of real troops in real battles.

Well, I guess I have had my say, and thanks both for taking the me to read this letter, and for having produced such a nice journal.

From Glen Boise

It was interesting watching the reactions of die hard WRG 7th ed. gamers to DBM. First there was the assumption it would flush in the pan like some previous new rules. Then, there was belittlement. A sort of "real men play only 7th" comments combined with treating DBM players as second class citizens. Now, after seeing the growing popularity of DBM, there am rear guard actions. Calls for reason that Ith portrays ancient battles better, and appeals for coexistence like your Defense lost issue. Let us look at your reasons for returning to 7th.:

1) TROOP DIFFERENTIATION - True DBM homogenizes many troops when compared to Ith ed. This reflects the difference in scale of the two rules sets. The Ith ed. is basically a tactical Same. The player is both the generals and the captains of all his battles and units. Not only does he give orders for his battles; he makes sure his units carries them out. The 7th player concentrates on matching up units against his opponent's units. The kinks of the rules and odd ball units are used for gaining advantage. The classic "fog" and "friction" of battle are minimally represented. DBM is an operational or grand tactical game. The player is the generals. The details of unit formations and weapons am built into the game factors. The player concentrates on using combinations of units/elements against his opponent. The "fog" and "friction" are boat into the system. Which rules set portrays ancient battle better? I would suggest that neither does. Both do a good job at their game scale. Both could be better. Anyone making a counter claim should provide a valid description of why the 7th ed. wedge formation should receive greater combat benefits than the line. Why should a wedged unit receive such a great benefit, when, in reality, it disordered upon contacting their opponents?

2) ANYONE SHOULD HAVE A CHANCE AT HOLDING AGAINST OR EVEN DEFEATING ANYONE ELSE - Obviously you did not see Dave Moore win the Coldwar's 94 DBM tournament. His band of "tiber" psilai held off a major flank attack of superior chariot knights and supporting troops long enough for the remainder of his army to defeat his opponent's other commands. Properly supported light troops, and other lower combat factor troops, can stop higher factor troops. It is a matter of how they are used and the dice. Unlike 7th., the low factor and low morale troops, like Irr D LMI with IPW, have useful functions in DBM.

3) IT'S IN THE DETAIL - In other words, examine the tree while losing sight of the forest Some of us prefer looking at the forest over counting the limbs an each tree. DBM does permit maneuvering in the face of the enemy. It just rewards those who have properly organized their army and commands in a manner which does not require major changes. As with 7th ed. games, planning ahead pays off.

4) ACCESSIBILITY OF THE RULES - (Something you ignored). Probably the greatest criticism of Ith ed. is the difficulty of learning it. A newcomer is routinely advised to apprentice himself to a veteran player. From him, he can really learn how to play 7th. Even then it takes time and many crushing defeats before he can playa competent game. Staying fresh with the extensive, complex rules and the myriad interpretations requires frequent play against multiple, skilled opponents. On the other hand, DBM is a more elegant Some. The basic elements are simple. Combining them into a winning game requires thought and skill. A newcomer can become competent at DBM by reading the rules and playing couple games. This is probably the greater appeal of DBM, You can play a game without worrying that you have forgotten some obscure rule or interpretation which will ruin your game.

Is there room for both 7th ed. and DBM, and for DBX Armati, and Shieldbearer, etc.? Sure there is. All of us am involved in ancients games because we claim we have fun playing them. The greater the variety of gaming available, then the greater the number of total players. Just remember, to paraphrase the model railroaders, "Wargaming is Fun (and it is the gamer who decides what makes it fun for him)."

From Mark Bloom

I must say I enjoyed your article on Brian Boru in Military History. (I wanted to go out and buy a Norse-Irish army!)

I have to apologize to you for dropping off the face of the earth the way I did. I'm afraid I got overwhelmed with personal commitments and wargaming as well as writing about wargaming were pushed aside. Anyway, I'm sorry if I caused you any inconvenience.

[Ed. Mark, I really missed those scenarios and articles of yours dealing with Dark Age battles, I hope you will be able to send me one or more in the future.]

Now that things are settling down I've got more time to pursue my hobby. Last fall with the help of the Civil War reruns and the Fire and Fury rules I started collecting 15mm ACW figures (I don't know if you noticed but ACW uniforms are easier to paint than ancients--except for cataphracts). Earlier this month I spent a very pleasant Sunday afternoon at Nowscon playing DBM. I had a great time-- even though I lost--I bet I could lose really big with my Sub-Roman Britons, I'm looking forward to it. I brought back the Ancient/Dark Age Battle lust I used to get. I've spent the last two weeks painting up a 2 yr. old box of Huns. When finish with them I'm going to tackle the 1 1/2 yr. old box of Franks. Then I hope to have the Battle of Chalons for the group of guys I met at Nowscon. If it works out maybe I can send you a battle report.

From Joseph DiBenedetto

Just a note to renew my subscription to SAGA and sorry to see you leave the SPEARPOINT publication position. When I first joined (SPEARPOINT) NASAMW the newsletter seemed to be more tournament results and "ole boy" inside jokes. I'm glad to see the mix of articles in SAGA. The articles that have really been helpful of la has been the beginners guide to DBM. I'm an amateur player so any explanation of what's happening on the tabletop is helpful. Keep u the good work and please keep up the variety.

[Ed. Thanks, Joe. I'm not sorry to see my tenure as SPEARPOINT editor end. 'There are so many divergent interests in NASAMW that no matter what you do, plenty of folks see your work negatively. I remember one of the first letters I received as editor blasted me I not spending more pages on upcoming tournaments. What can you write about a tournament? The rules of journalism (who, what, where, when but not the elusive why) were duly covered and after that... what else could be put in there? Needless to say, between the complaints and the extreme time delays in getting the journal out on time, in large part due to the mailing system involved, made the job of editor less than enjoyable. SAGA is fun to do. I have gotten to know many of you through letters, phone calls and getting together at convention etc. You guys are my friends and whenever it seems I don't have enough material to put an issue out on time, someone oozes through for me. Thanks for the continued support and I'll continue to do best in publishing a quality, enjoyable newsletter for all of us.]

From George Dullaghan

Congratulations on your cover story om MILITARY HISTORY! I understand they have a circulation in the hundreds of thousands. It as well written and caused me to go to the cabinet where I store my Irishmen and Vikings in 15mm. I have to admit that someone whose name in Gaelic means "bondi in black armour (Norwegian)" might be based.

My brother enjoys his SAGA and actually in now an ancients argamer. We fought a TACTICA battle which I wrote up for MWAN and t was enjoyable. Our next ancients battle will be Macedonians against Achaemenids--we are deciding whether to do Granicus, Issus or Gaugamela.

Can you give SAGA readers an idea about your new book? We are still waiting for a pamphlet about Teutonic knights. Thanks for the past two years of SPEARPOINT--it changed from an adequate WRG booklet to an absorbing and focused treatise that had something to offer gamers, historians, collectors and all 'friends of history'.

[Ed. The book project is once again in limbo. Trying to convince he marketing executives in the publishing business that a topic dealing with anything pre-17th century, at least as far as military history goes, has been an utter failure. After spending six months speaking with Presidio Press, the book was suddenly shot down because they could not figure out how to market it successfully. Being in business, I certainly understand their concerns, but it was still a major disappointment. Needless to say, I'm pursuing other publishers, notably Brassey's (a subsidiary of MacMillan) and Hippocrene. -

Basically, the book deals with leadership form 451-1410 A.D., notably strategic and tactical generalship. My premise is that many of the leaders were intelligent, resourceful and shrewd. They could and did influence the performance of their troops in battle both before, during and after the battle--of course this flies in the face of Oman, Delbruck and most other early military historians. Much of more recent scholarship (but certainly not all!) supports this as does the written, archaeological, psychological and artistic record of the contemporaries. I'll keep you posted. Actually, George, the past booklet for PALLAS ARNATI which I'm still in the middle of, deals with the Wars of the Roses; i.e. twelve to fifteen scenarios. I'll get back to that this fall once the yard is taken care of!]

From Skip Torok

I received my SAGA #45 Friday--another excellent edition. I truly enjoyed your article "In Defense of the 7th" and I agree 100%. Keep up your good work. There is something about finding a new SAGA in the mail box after a long hard day!

Thanks, Skip. I've been surprised at the response to the article. It seems that there are quite a few of us 7th diehards out there. It was nice to see that in the latest SPEARPOINT, the vast majority of the upcoming tourneys are still 7th based. SIMCON will be as well this year. An open 15mm iron man format, three rounds. See you there!]