From: Simon Wilson (simon.wilson15@virgin.net)

Terry,

I'm in the process of getting familiar with your rules. I'd be grateful if you could answer a couple of questions for me:

1. Could you clarify how far a unit pursues a routing enemy? Is this the normal tactical distance or is it the charge/retire/rout distance? [It is the charge/retire/rout distance...you must roll for your distance just as the routers.]

2. Do javelin armed troops who are "Out of missiles", lose the javelin factor in close combat and if, armed with an other weapon that only allows first rank to fire, also lose the half rank entitlement for the second rank? [Yes. It is a calculated risk to use the javelins as a distance weapon rather to saving them for close combat, but one you may want to take against, say archers.]

3. If pilum armed troops go on to fight another combat without a "Recover" order, do they lose the pilum factor and the second rank entitlement (ie they are now fighting with sword only?) [No, they retain the pilum factor, though it is reduced in subsequent rounds of combat...this reflects their training in the use of the gladius as well as rear ranks pounding the enemy with pilum.]

Would I be right in thinking that you can only countercharge if you have placed a charge or move order for the unit in question? [Correct.]

From John Switzer (jswitzer@holmes.cc.ms.us)

Hi Terry

Received my copy of Ancient Warfare yesterday and I am quite impressed with them. I have struggled over the last few years trying to find a ruleset that was easy to understand and at the same time captured the feel and spirit of the era. I believe my search is over. I can't wait to try them out on the tabletop but unfortunately I am in the middle of a major remodeling project in my new home and it will probably be at least a month or so before I can unpack my soldiers. The up side though is that the remodeling project includes a gameroom.

I subscribed to the mailing list on onelist and look forward to reading the discussions on there. I will also be sending you a check (come payday) for a subscription to Saga and also for a copy Medieval Warfare.

I did have several questions though concerning a few rules in Ancient Warfare and the army list and I will post them to the mailing list later today.

Thanks again and I look forward to my first opportunity to try the rules.

From Dennis A. Leventhal (denmar@maryland.net)

SAGA just gets better and better. The variety of contributors makes for stimulating reading. I especially appreciated Perry Gray's bringing my attention to the book Sowing the Dragon's Teeth which deals with Byzantine army tactics. I've already ordered a copy from Amazon.com.

I tried accessing the wargamer.com chat room for AW & MW discussions (mentioned in this month's Editorial), but keep getting a "not authorized for access" message. What gives? I've got a few opinions on specific army lists that I'd like to bounce around at some point.

By the way, Jamie's advert on page 33 doesn't mention if his figures are 15 mm or 25 mm. Clarifiying this point might be helpful to new wargamers. [15mm].

From: Greg Barks (tyrion@worldnet.att.net)

I purchased my copy of MW at Historicon '99, if that gives you an idea of which version of the rules they are. I have to tell you that this is exactly what I have been looking for in a set of medieval rules. You really did a fantastic job.

From Perry Gray (perry_gray@hotmail.com)

There are still some points in the MW rules that need to be clarified. One of the problems is the layout of the rules such that one must check several sections to find all the information about a specific action. We had to check several times to verify that SC can use a "Retreat" order to break-off from melee. The initial description refers to "implied" threats only, while the option to break-off is listed in the Combat section. It would have been easier to list all situations for each order under Orders, rather than scattered through the rules. [Good point, I'll see what I can do.]

There were three specific questions that arose from our last game. First, do units engaged in melee/combat need to be given a "Deploy" order to move stands into contact with enemy stands (for example, a cavalry unit in two ranks wants to move the second rank into an extended line to face enemy stands which form overlaps) or is this movement considered automatic? This is not clear in the Orders section. [Like ARMATI, you are committed to the formation you are in once you enter a close combat. Only wedges and conrois may extend their lines (by going out of these formations...flattening out as they hit and do not break through) and they are subsequently disordered.]

Using the optional Uncontrolled Charge rule, what happens if the cavalry have no enemy within a normal move? Can they move towards the nearest enemy or do they remain halted? [They are required to move toward the nearest eligible enemy target and then charge them when within normal movement range.]

To illustrate the second question, we had a Norman milites unit charge but fail to catch a unit of SC. The SC went behind a hill as a result of their Retreat move. The Normans could see other enemy to their rear including another SC unit within a normal move. Since the Normans were disordered and facing away from all enemy units, we allowed them to spend a turn doing an about face (they could not Recover as they were beyond Command range and The general was in melee). [They may automatically make a 'free' 180 degree turn at the start of the new turn, no orders required for this and no penalty for it either.]

During the turn, the second SC moved beyond the normal move of the Normans. Our opinion was that the Normans would attempt to move towards the enemy (all units were presenting their rear flank to the Normans) and charge when within range. [that is correct.]

Otherwise, the milites would have stayed in place until enemy approached or a new order was given. The second option was unlikely as the nearest general was part of a unit that was being pushed back in combat and fragmented, thus the general's chances of resuming control of his troops was unlikely. Note that my opponent usually sends his generals into combat with milites units. [He must curb his war-like instincts to some degree. Even the Normans kept their commanders back for much of their battles, only charging in when necessary.] The likelihood of enemy approaching was also slim as no enemy units needed to approach the Normans. The third question - if you only have two stands in a unit, is the unit considered in line or in column if one stand is behind the other? A four stand unit in two ranks is defined as a line, while a column is one stand by many stands. [a simple rule of thumb: any formation deeper in stands than it is wide in stands is a column.]

In addition, can a single stand join another unit or must it remain alone? This applies to units reduced to one stand after shooting and melee. [You cannot combine units in a battle. this occurred after the fighting was over, but not during it.]

Shooting is still giving us headaches. While we agree in general that shooting is good, in some situations the inability to cause casualties is frustrating. Cavalry, particularly AC and FPC, can get very close to shooters with little fear of suffering casualties. [That is their value].

I placed a unit of AC within Medium range of two units of Norman shooters (two stands of crossbow in close order and six stands of archers in loose order). The archers had Defend orders so gained a -1, and the crossbows gained -1 for being a strength of 4. [They also should have received a -1 for being CB or LB firing at non-skirmisher cavalry.]

The AC benefited by being shielded (+1) and AC (+2). Therefore the shooters needed 10 to cause a casualty. If the range had been Long, neither unit would have been able to "hit", however, the AC would still be able to charge. So if the AC want to guarantee contacting one of these units, they have to move to Medium range. The AC have a chance of making contact even at Long range against the archers. [Not against the CB, however.]

The point is that the AC are facing a significant force of shooters (8 stands), but this is not really a threat. We do not accept that large numbers of shooters would be ineffective against cavalry to their front at "effective combat range" (modern military parlance for the normal range at which weapons first become a serious threat to enemy forces). Is it likely that cavalry could get within this range of massed shooters without being concerned? [They still should be concerned. An intelligent commander knew about missile troops. Historically, bows were not much of a deterent to AC/FPC, hence the development, adoption and use of the LB/CB/HG as armor became heavier and harder to pierce.]

By comparison consider shooting in DBM. Bowmen fire at 200 paces, while Knights (except Fast) move only 150 paces. Therefore the bowmen have a minimum of two shots before the Knights make contact. I appreciate that this is comparing apples and oranges; however, there is cause for looking at the relationship between distance and action (movement and shooting primarily).

Do archers have a worthwhile role if they can not shoot before being "ridden down"? [The few armies allowed FPC and AC are not going to have many other troops if they spend all their points on these troop types. They are beaten just like they were historically - get on their flank or rear and cut them down. Give your archers Retreat orders when threatened with a charge by these guys. They wouldn't stick around to die, believe me. Also, the cavalry will charge into thin air and be a disordered, vulnerable target after not hitting anything.]

While we know it is too late to change the rules, we do feel that shooters are extremely vulnerable to frontal attacks. If players use the optional ammunition rule, then shooters become even less effective. This encourages cavalry to charge them even if they are longbows. In our last game, there was only one unit of bows that were successful against cavalry. This was a fluke as the cavalry failed their Frenzy test and halted 1 inch from the archers. The archers were on Defend orders and elected to use a barrage. The cavalry lost five casualties as the archers (six stands) were rolling nine dice. The archers needed a five to hit.

So they hit just over 55% of the time, despite a 60% chance (5,6,7,8,9,10). After tallying the total losses after three turns of fire, the cavalry lost 11 of 12 castings. The archers had had 21 chances to hit (6, 6, 9) so the results were about 50%. The odds favoured the archers because the unit was optimized. It was on Defend orders, had a strength of four and its target was HC in wedge. This situation is one rarely encountered in our games. [But it did happen. The cavalry armies complain that the archers are still too powerful!]

We have come to consider SI as useful mainly to screen troops from missile fire. The change to Interpenetration encourages cavalry to hide behind SI until close enough to charge. The SI have caused very few casualties despite being armed with bow or crossbow. Their limited use is not reflected in the army lists, which allows for a large number of SI. [But they are cheap. Look at their actual battlefield role.

Do you hear of skirmishers after the preliminary screening and desultory firing in any battles? No. Use them to screen better troops, chase other skirmishers away and trigger enemy ambushes...historical uses for them.]

The main drawback to using an SI screen is that some cavalry are slowed when advancing. The improved tactic is then to use SI only when opposed by massed shooters as in the paragraph above. The last point for this missive concerns the optional rules. The main danger of these options is the potential for selective use. If two players agree to use them, there may be arguments of which ones. Do all have to be used or only some. If the latter, then which ones? If I have lots of shooters, then I do not want to use the ammunition rule, but will want the shooting in a charge/retreat and Feigned Flight. If I have lots of irregular cavalry, then the uncontrolled test may be desirable (unless one wants greater control). [The advanced rules will mostly be included in the main body of the Foundry rules. Not the latest additions, however. The Missile Supply Rule will remain an option, for instance.]

The question then is what guidelines do you recommend? I think that this is important given that the optional rules seem to be expanding. [For now, both players must agree on which of them to use.]

Kevin Boylan writes:

Terry, I have a question about the obligatory charge. I'd tentatively theorize that it was the advent of effective pike armies (after the Swiss example) that made Knights a little gun-shy about charging formed foot.

Prior to that, most foot in Western European armies would have been armed with Spears -- and were usually impetuously charged and often broken by chivalric horse. The chief Scottish innovation was not their choice of weapon (which would have been common in many parts of Europe, such as Flanders), but their adoption of a formation that made more effective use of it. British knights were utterly flummoxed by mere spearmen who neither ran away when charged, nor could be flanked. They eventually settled on dismounting as a solution of sorts, but even that would have proven unavailing without longbowmen to act in support.

Besides the examples from the Scottish Wars of Independence, one could also cite Courtrai and several other incidents on the Continent to support an argument for excluding Long Spear as exceptions to the Uncontrolled Charge rule. In the final analysis, my belief is that the inadvisability of charging formed, close-order pike/spear was a lesson that had to be learned over the course of a century or so. Some armies, such as the Feudal English, should not be credited with wisdom they did not possess. The same would be true for Austrians and French fighting early Swiss, etc. Historically, some armies would not be immune to the effects of Uncontrolled Charges even when facing pike/halberd. [Longspear and pike still count as a -d6 for cavalry charging and a +2 for the Scots morale test when charged. I would not charge mounted into a schiltron. If on level ground, you do not get the benefit of a charge, unless very lucky with the dice, and the Scots count 2 1/2 ranks deep worth of spears, get a plus one for more figures/stand, count +3 for weapon factor vrs. mounted, and in schiltron and having Defend orders, the cav count a further -2! Good luck. Get them on a hill and there's no way they can lose without being shot to pieces first.]

From: Jean M. Desroches (djeanm@iosphere.net)

I have a few questions on the army list and the rules in general. Hoping that you will be able to clarify them.

Army list:

1-Is there a way of obtaining a point system for the elements? [I do have a point system available. I've included it as an attachment.]

2-In list one you have skirmish cavalry warrior with jav and sh trained at 4 pts. In list 2 you have skirmish cavalry warrior with jav bow sh at 5 pts. Is this correct? I realize one has bow but the other is trained and may do more. [They should both be 5 points.]

3-the Byzantines seem to lost the skutakoi archers in the Maurikian list. They have them in the lists before and after. Is the list correct? [The list should also have 6-16 Skutatoi Archers, HI Warriors(T), B/Sh 4 @ 7 pts.]

Rules

I have a unit with Fire and Flee orders. They advance shoot into the enemy line. My opponent is in depth. Skirmish infantry in the front line, cavalry lance armed in the second line.

1- May I declare a FF charge on the cavalry ignoring the infantry? [No.]

2-If I cannot ignore the infantry then they will test for the charge? [SI will not have to take a test for being charged in the open by mounted SC].

3-Will the cavalry test also for being lance armed? [No test is necessary...yet. Once the SI are out of the way (they will retreat when charged), you can do your F&F attack against the Lance-armed cavalry next turn.]

4-The FF charge rule was made to provoke cavalry? [Yes.]

5-Why not let them test morale as if they were the ones being fired at? (using the above example of cavalry screened by infantry) [Because they are not the target...SI have the sole purpose of being able to screen their better quality troops from just this sort of thing.]

6-In the rules for a unit to be in line it must be two stands wide. If a player has them one behind the other are the considered in column? [My definition of a column is very simple. If it is deeper in stands than it is wide in stands, it is a column. Yes, one stand behind another, assuming the unit is only two stands, is a column.]

7-On turn 3 I have given a unit an order deploy or defend a hill. On turn 4 I want my unit to continue what they did in turn 3. Question must I give them a new order or will they continue with the order they have? [They need a new order. Men in these times were inherently problematic and took every opportunity to take off, sleep, drink or whatever. It took a tight rein and a general's vigilance to keep them on their toes.]

8-I have ordered troops by a deploy order to form a shieldwall, wedge etc. They will remain in these formation (no Contact with enemy) until the following deploy order? [Once you have put them into a formation, they stay in it until they have to break it because of morale, close combat or movement restrictions.]

In Ancient Warfare:

Chariots as transport please! They speak of a one to four man crew per chariots. How many chariots do you have to have to create an impression? My impression has always been the following: They come rumbling foward to see if anybody will panic. If not they veer off in a shower of javelins. Something like the FF charge in MW. If they panic someone (disorder) or have an advantage, They'll dismount and charge. If they are not making any head way well they leave. I would say they are basically shock troops. [Good points, thanks!]

From: Mark Bloom (mbloom@alltel.net)

Hi, Terry

I've got to tell you, I really enjoyed the tournament. Good to talk to you again also. I am writing to let you know I plan on attending Cold Wars this year. I'd like to be in your tournament, but I haven't decided which one. Probably 15mm AW......, but I do like the look and feel of the 25's. Do I need to decide now or can I be wishy washy for a couple more months? If AW I plan on dusting off my Late Romans, if MW I will bring my 25mm Feudal Germans again.

During my game with Bruce some guy and his wife came by and commented on how he had not seen the proper use of knights before in a wargame and how impressed he was with that. Course he did not stick around long enough to see them charge uphill to meet up with Bruce's proper use of Longbow, stakes, and pikemen. But I thought it was a nice comment on your rules. (I never played lance armed knights before and the only research I did was looking up old battle plans of the early German Imperialist.) Great Job!

I plan on introducing MW/AW to our club next time they make up the schedule of games. I want to work up to re-fight the Battle of Chalons (using your Campaign for Gaul battle plans as a guide). I will start small though with maybe a 500 point army with 3 commands for each side. (mostly because I'm not that good at the rules yet and even worse at remembering the modifiers....but I'm working on it.) [Ed. Let me know if you need anything for your game, Mark, such as QRS sheets, etc. That goes for anyone running one of our games. I have available those great looking order markers Jeff did up for his Liegnitz game, as well as full color QRS sheets. Of course, any rules queries are most welcome. Once I've gotten things settled down a bit, I'll be redoing my scenario books for AW/MW as well.]

From Shanhome@aol.com

Terry--I met you recently at Fall In (and your events were the best I attended, by the way), and have been going over the Ancient Warfare rules that I purchased. I have a couple of questions:

1) What does it take for an infantry to be considered AI or FAI? There are none that I could find on the army lists. [They are dismounted AC and FAC. If you elect to fight with these troops on foot, this is what they are rated as]

2) Are locking shields and Testudo formations supposed to give a +! Factor mod against missile fire, or just melee? The missile mod makes sense, but is not mentioned on the missile fire table. [Testudo is included after SC/SI. Add locked shields to this table as well for a +1].

3) Is combat simultaneous? Specifically, do morale tests incurred by the first player happen before the second player gets to attack back? [Combat is simultaneous. You get to fight back before you take your morale test.]

, one of my goals for going to Fall In (my first major convention) was to find an ancients system that was a tad more complex than WAB, but not as annoying as WRG or DBxx. I was very happy to find that your rules took into account the many "tactical level" details yet ran so smoothly, and with logical results. I hope that in future HMGS events you are able to sponsor Ancient Warfare tournaments as well as the Medieval Warfare one. Thank you for dealing with my questions, and hope to see you at the next convention.