Dear Terry:

I read with interest your recent article in Saga 52: The Current State of Ancient/Medieval Wargaming. It clearly answered the question for me as to why you have such antipathy for the DBM rules versus the old WRG 7th Edition.

I agree entirely with your assessment that the main difference between 7th and DBM is the trade off involving elimination of weapon type/troop weight/morale grade in favor of playability. Some historical flavor is undoubtedly lost along the way. It is my assessment (and Craig Tyrell's also since you mentioned him specifically) that this trade off is very worthwhile.

In regard to your other comments, I would also like to see average dice, but I can live without as is like the terrain placement rules. It adds flavor to your planning as a gamer, but does nothing for historical accuracy. You still need to be a rules lawyer to play 7th, which I no longer care to do. I look forward to seeing how the Warhammer rules come out.

I have enclosed another letter, this time on DBR, along with my subscription. I have not had much time to write lately. I hope to improve on that and send more material.

Dear Terry:

I have two items to raise. The first covers an omission in my last letter to SAGA (issue no 52). The second point covers some issues you raise in your article on The Current State of Ancient/Medieval Wargaming Rules.

In my letter, I mentioned that I had written a program that allows players to create and maintain their DBM army lists on computer. I forgot to mention my postal address for those interested in the upgrade version. My address is:

The Tasman
Golden Drop
Helpston, Peterborough
PE6 7DW, United Kingdom

The standard version of the program allows a player to enter and store their army order of battle on computer and will calculate unit points, command and army demoralisation levels and EE's automatically, as well as performing some basic checks for baggage and command structure. etc. etc. It is tree and available by downloading the program from the following web page: http://tetrad.stanford.edu/DBM.html

The upgrade version is now complete, but alas it is not free. The upgrade version allows you to enter an army list from the DBM Army Books into the program, and then check your order-of-battle against the standard list. The program will advise you if you are missing compulsories, it you have taken too many or too few elements, etc.. You can also build up your order-of-battles by dragging and dropping lines from your electronic army list into your order-of-battle.

You can obtain a copy by writing to me at the above postal address. I charge US$20 00 (or 10.00 pounds stirling plus 2 pounds for overseas postage) for the upgrade (no US cheques please). You do not need the standard version to install and run the upgrade version

The second point covers what is, I believe, a red herring in your arguments against the DBM rule set. The current set of WRG generic terminology for troops is probably no better or no worse that the 7th terminology. Instead of "MI" we have "blades," instead of "HC" we have "cavalry," instead of ''SHC" we have "knights." While it may be true that Jamie Fish had people asking for "blades" for Viking armies. I remember when I was playing 7th there were no shortage of people describing Vikings as "LHI" or worse, "Irr B LHI 2HCW Sh."

I am happier when people know the characteristics of the troops they are trying to represent, and can translate these characteristics into the jargon used by the rules set. So, if you know that the majority of Hunnic cavalry were lightly armed horsemen with bow, javelin, and shield, then fine. Describe them LH(S) or Irr C LC, JLS Sh when they are being described in the context of the rules. Otherwise, stick to calling them lightly armed horsemen with bow and maybe javelin and possibly shield.

In my younger days, when I knew everything, I was convinced that Huns were indeed Irr C LC JLS Sh. Now I am older and not so wise, I am no longer convinced that the majority of Huns carried shields or even a spear while mounted, but that is another article.

I actually prefer the more generic definition given in DBM compared to the very precise definitions demanded of 7th, but this is personal taste and I cannot really rationalise that the more generic is better or worse than the more specific. My preference for the more generic definition stems from the fact that we have so little hard fact for a majority of ancient armies. A lot of our information on how troops were armed and how they operated is conjectural or based on fragmentary evidence.

One blind ally that I believe 7th lead some of us down was that the precise troop classifications provided an (unconscious) motivation for researching weapon types as a justification for improving an army under 7th. For example, it is advantageous under 7th to have shielded cavalry. Therefore a lot of effort goes into "proving" that your favourite flavour of Irr B EHC, L, B was possibly armed with shield. It's even better if it's conjectural because you can then make the use of shields optional and thus take the front rank with shields and the second rank without, thereby saving points.

Similarly, slingers acquired shields because they could retain a shielded factor in shooting. Perhaps the ultimate research bonanza was to 'prove ' that your HC operated in wedge. However, I accept that this trend in research was the fault of the wargamer, not the rules. And I should also point out, in hindsight, that I was one of the people guilty of this practice.

Finally, Terry, you mention that lousy dice will lose you the game. The example you gave was if you roll three ones for the opening PIP dice and the opponent rolls three sixes. There is no reason why the 'three ones' player will go on to lose. It may even turn out to be a blessing in disguise because it will encourage 'three ones' to maintain a close knit formation and may encourage "three sixes" to fragment his army prematurely in an effort to use all the PIPs. In fact, a PIP of three ones is probably more disastrous in the mid- or end-game because it restricts your ability to reform your line. But then, it is no worse than that big block of Irr C LMI, JLS, Sh, rolling a +4 against your foot's score of -3 (you know. the unit with the sub-general, right slap-bang in the centre of your line).

On balance, I prefer DBM to 7th for exactly the reasons that you do not like DBM. I like the more generic troop definitions for the reasons given above, and I like the restrictions that PIP dice place on command and control. I cannot really "prove" that one rule system is better than the other. I guess it is a case of sticking with what you like.

And for the future? Well, I look forward to the throw-three-dice-and-add-up-the-modifiers reaction charts being rediscovered in 9th Edition. Not!

Dear Terry,

I received your postcard - Thanks for your comments and reply! If you wish, you can go ahead and print portions of my letter - I'll trust your judgment.

I'm about 60 percent through Neglected Heroes. I've really enjoyed it - I think you did a fantastic job.

It is refreshing to see credit given to the early Medieval leaders (more than the popular description of charging headlong into a massive scrum with no forethought). Not wanting to bash DBA/DBM, but it is harder and harder for me to accept the you go/I go Pip for movement sequence. It doesn't really fit any description of any battle sequences I've read. Battles seem to have been more of a contest of wills, gaining and losing the initiative, and use of clever strategems than the PIP sequence represents. The whole DBA/DBM system is too sterile for my tastes. Oh well, enough of that!

I continue to enjoy SAGA - I look forward to it every couple of months. Keep up the good work!