Looking forward to my first SAGA issue. I have read through MW, but not yet played a game with them. There are some remarks I would like to make.

Overall, quite readable and nicely written.

Good idea to make the ground scale dependent on base size, rather than on figure size. Basically, this makes the rules independent of figure size.

What figure size do you have primarily in mind ? Some remarks in the discussion of bases hint at 25 mm figures, though the rules certainly do not require a specific figure size. [25mm, but any scale works.]

Why don't you go the whole way with the ground scales and give all measurements in paces (as WRG do) ? Just state that one base width = 40 paces. Players can then make simple card rulers according to their preferred base size. It would considerably simplify the various range and movement tables.

[This was in the initial version the rules, but The Foundry editors felt it better to include separate charts for each scale.]

Shouldn't you be more specific about the troops and terrain types for an ambush? e.g.according to the rules, it is possible to hide cavalry in a bog.

[I am a strong believer in giving a player plenty of rope to hang himself with. If someone really wants to try to ambush out of a bog with HC, I hope he tries it against me! The rationale is that you should have the capability to TRY anything you like, so long as it is not entirely impossible.]

In the discussion of casualties, they are counted in strength points. In the discussion of losses for an ambush, you still speak about 'figures' Left over from an earlier edition perhaps ?

[You caught me there….]

I think the terrain effects for Elephants are wrong. Indian Elephants live and are used to work in the jungle, and I vividly remember a TV documentary of Elephants moving easily over fairly steep hills (Hannibal!) Elephants might be hampered in bogs or soft sand, but not in brush, hills or jungle.

[This is a tough call. Personally, having observed pachyderms both in person and in documentaries, they never seemed very dependable (i.e. capable of charging effectively) except on fairly clear terrain. Since they are a 'shock' weapon, they are limited in their usefulness when in delaying terrain.]

I don't think that a novice gamer would understand your definition of a 'wheel'. Probably the best would be a graphic example. [This will be included in the Foundry version, as will several other diagrams.]

I am not sure that the Swiss Square should really be a separate formation. I see it more as an attack column (wedge in the rules?) which could easily be turned into a hedgehog (schiltron in the rules).

[Again, a tough call, but the rule reflects their actual battlefield tactics. Your illustration is a good one.]

Why are generals allowed to give orders to all units within command range. Normally, I would expect they would obey only their own commander and the C-in-C.

[In all of my research, I have rarely found situations where the troops would not respond to orders from a perceived superior. A lord was a lord, and it really didn't matter whose lord he was, he was still stronger, more powerful or feared and demanded their obedience and respect (in feudal terms) of any fighters in the same army. Of course, mercenary contingents and allies were a different story, but in order to keep things as simple as possible, the rule is as stated.]

In the NOTE discussing 'Retreat' orders for skirmishers, you state; 'Skirmish Infantry may automatically Retreat...' and 'Skirmish Cavalry may voluntarily opt to Retreat...' Do both phrases mean the same ?

[SI must Retreat if they will be contacted by closer ordered troops, while SC have the option to Retreat (they can opt to stay and fight). This has been clarified in the Foundry edition.]

This really has to wait for some test games, but I am not a great fan of games with tightly defined order systems. I feel that these often artificially hamper actions units would quite sensibly adopt under they own initiative, e.g.sensible responses to enemy charges.

[Believe me, I understand your concern here, but the whole gaming system (rock, paper, scissors) is dependent on order markers…you trying to figure out what your opponent is doing and he the same with you. The order markers keep everyone honest and provide an exciting mental contest as well.]

In the morale test section, the historical remark on infantry being charged by knights is not too accurate. What made a knightly charge formidable was the lance, the massed ranks of horsemen at the gallop, and the invulnerability of the armoured troopers.

[And the foot perceiving that they were probably going to die! (My point).]

I suggest to make morale tests for reason #1 (being charged) also dependent on the morale of the rear ranks. It is they who have the room to run away, not the front rankers. These have no option but to stay in place if the rear ranks keep to their position.

[The best troops were usually in the front ranks. They were used to bolster the morale of the rest of the men (Northallerton, Hastings, etc.) You are correct in saying that they have no choice but to stand if the rear ranks do, but they could also, by their defiance and sheer bravery, hold the entire unit integrity together.]

Shouldn't effective bow range for mounted archers be shorter than for foot bows ? [Probably, but I opted to suggest that the composite bows coupled with the maneuverability of the cavalry offset the foot ranges.]

I suggest to rename the longbow shooting category to 'strong bows', which would include both longbows and the more powerful types of composite bows. [That is another good suggestion, Karl.]

Is the all-round shooting arc for mounted troops reasonable ? It might be OK for javelins, but a horse archer cannot shoot to his right side unless he is a left-handed man or at least equally skilled left and right. [Again, a simplification on my part to keep cumbersome mechanisms to a minimum.]

If you mention Greek Fire for naval battles, similar rules should apply to early Chinese gunpowder incendiary weapons.

[Here is a point I never thought of….would they count the same? If so, would we simply state that the rule is called "Greek Fire and Incendiary Weapons? Any idea how to word it?]

Pikes and longspears drop to 0 combat effectiveness in subsequent rounds of close combat. This is OK if they become disordered troops, but if they hold their own, I would expect them to keep formation and to retain some effectiveness.

[They still get to fight in the deeper formations they are allowed to use. A pike unit can fight with all three ranks, long spears count 2 1/2 ranks and spears 2. Troops armed with other weapons have a real tough time with these weapon types unless they can disorder them.]

For infantry caught in the rear, isn't the 0 effectiveness rather tough ? Imagine the situation: A unit is being charged in the rear. Unless they are deaf and blind, they will turn to face the threat. They may be disordered, but not down to fighting with swords only. Especially axemen and halberdiers would be fairly effective fighting all-round. Similar arguments might apply to flank attacks, depending on the formation.

[Again, a judgment call. In Medieval battles, the lack of training obviated panic when the troops saw they were in real tough straits. Being charged in the flank or rear usually meant things were all over. The obvious answer to all this would be to give your troops a Deploy order so that they could either form schiltron or turn to face the attacker.]

What happens when units forced to retreat are blocked by terrain or other troops ? [Under Disorder, troops which cannot fall back because of blocking terrain or other troops are disordered, often this is the second or third disorder, which results in a Rout.]

There are no point values for troop types, though they are mentioned in the victory conditions. Are they in the army lists? [Yes.]