Mitch Abrams writes:

I read Perry's comments with great interest. His analysis of the problem hits the point squarely on the head. Succinctly, its a complex problem. I'm not a great believer in changing something if it's not broke but when your on the side that is shooting and you believe a trick in the rules is giving your opponent an undue advantage its very disconcerting. What I think may have been glossed over is that this does not happen that often. I agree with some latitude but I'm of the opinion that with every good decision there should be the possibility of an adverse occurrence.

Terry has said that you can play many roles in AW/MW. Might I suggest that you allow (even as an optional rule) the player to be the unit commander and in those rare occasions where he would like to change the normal priorities he roll to see if the order is obeyed.

A typical roll might be: 1 - 2: Unit commander gets his choice, 3: Disregard and fire at normal priorities, 4 - 5: No fire allowed - confusion in the ranks 6: No fire unless a friendly unit is in the arc and then fire at them. This could be amended or not for a Leader's rating by a minus 1 or 2 we do for other items. It could be only for the subcommander of the group that the unit is part of. The point is that there is validity to the argument but how do you avoid it getting out of hand? A good thing can go too far.

As far as historical precedent, I feel confident that by giving the player the choice of when they want to invoke this you are enhancing the historical possibilities while as Perry says "May be a gamer needs to have a few dilemmas added to make the game more interesting." The major down side to this is another role; but judiciously applied by the player (and the 1/3 chance of success pretty much forces this) it may add a couple of rolls per game. The critical thing is a complex problem can be dealt with in a relatively simple manner while enhancing the choices the player has and giving him a means to deal with the tactical situation he is faced with.

Shan Palmatier writes:

Last weekend a particularly tough battle was fought between the Theban Greeks and the Later Punic Carthaginians. The two Greek commanders (Shan and Brian) were in awe of the length of the Carthaginian battle line, but lined up in echelon fashion, ready to break the center.

The Carthag commander (Steve), was very wary of the power of the phalanxes, and sought to win on the wings. The left wing was piled with Numidians as well as Companion cavalry, while the other flank was allocated a weak holding force of Gauls and Spanish cavalry.

Excellent use of the fire and flee rule gave the Numidian swarm a clear, though time consuming win on the left flank against the Theban Cavalry. The excellent Numidian general had to be committed with the Companions to counter the rampaging Theban Vet HC with General in wedge, however. This was a real problem for Steve, as he had not rolled well for his generals overall, and had 50% more units than the Greek forces. He was unable to swing his cavalry around to affect the center because of this.

On the right flank, the Unarmoured Spanish cavalry was bested by the Peltasts, both in the Javelin throwing contest, and then in close combat. The Gauls managed to force a phalanx to wheel around to prevent flanking, but once it became clear the massive difference in control of a Trained unit vs. a Warband, they were allowed to charged headlong into the locked shield, defending phalanx. Both units of Spanish cavalry had been driven off by Peltasts and Slingers, and so the Greeks won, but were hopelessly away from the center of the army, which had been plodding methodically along.

So the battle came down to a contest in the center, both sides employing phalanxes. Here the Thebans showed their true mettle, however, as the Veteran hoplites and the Elite Sacred band won each contest successively, although by a slim margin each time. (usually just one figure). Once disordered, the phalanxes were all but lost unless help came from another quarter. Scutari almost turned the tide, but were miraculously beaten off by more Peltasts assigned to guard the flanks. The Peltasts had lost two combats, but just managed to eliminate a stand, for which the Scutari rolled a "1", and Carthage had not supplied its soldiers with a priest! They broke and fled, and were caught and killed to a man. No one could believe it, but it happened.

That was the last real chance for the Carthage center, and it crumpled, though bitterly contesting every action. All attempts to lure the hoplites into a premature charge had failed, and with the center broken, 1/3 of the Carthaginian army was lost.

This was an exceptionally close game and both sides thought all was lost on several occasions. We learned quite a bit though there are the usual post game questions.

1) Are morale tests for losing a stand taken for each stand if they are lost in a batch. At one point a group of skirmishers were left to die against the Sacred Band. Three stands were lost at once, which looks like three morale tests, one at -1, one at -2, and one at -3 (for losing extra stands). Is that how this should be resolved? [Ed. You would only take one morale test, counting -3 for the three stands lost. Actually, in this instance, the skirmishers would have had to Retreat, they cannot fight closer order troops, and if contacted, they are destroyed.]

2) Once it came up that an already disordered unit was fragmented as the result of a morale test. It strongly implies in the rules that Disordered + Fragmented= Rout. [Yes] I am pretty sure that we are playing these rules correctly, I'd just like verification. In any case it was a fun, tense game, that really could have gone either way.

Jeff Ball wrote:

Had a good back and forth game of RW yesterday with the Scots Covenanters sneaking out a win by getting around a flank with a small unit of lancers which ran a Dragoon unit down from behind and then got in amongst the guns to get the last unit needed to break the army.

The only question that came up that might apply to AW/MW was about how to sequence certain events in a charge. We had a situation where I had two units charging and he had two units charging. He wanted to charge one at each while I wanted to have both charge his end unit. The way we did it was to have one of my units have to charge his 2nd unit in accordance with the requirement to charge a unit that is charging you if possible. Then he attempted to go frenzied and failed by 1, halting in place. I was barely able to contact him due to a needed wheel at the beginning of the turn, but it worked out okay.

The question that arises is this: does the fact that he is not in fact charging (because of the failed frenzy attempt) mean that I get to choose the target of my charge? [No, you still have to charge his initially charging unit.]

In fact, should the frenzy attempt come before target selection at all? There are times when seemingly simultaneous things have to happen in a certain order I guess. [If you do everything in sequence, starting with the charges going from the flank edge where the initiative winner decides, everything should work out. Each unit in turn dies the following: Do each charge/response/frenzy attempt in sequence, unit by unit.
1. The charge is declared and frenzied is declared if you want.
2. Charge response is declared (i.e. counter-charge, retreat, etc.) The defender takes his morale test for being charged, if required.
3. Roll for Frenzy.
4. Charge is made.
5. Charge Response is made.
6. Go to the next Charge.]

Another item along these lines has to do with charging through other units. In my MW game with Paul we had a situation where he had a unit of Ghazis (Fanatic Axemen) facing a mixed Crusader unit of LSp and CB. Behind the Crusader foot was a unit of Templar knights. Based on my thought process (and I use the words 'thought' AND 'process' loosely...) the Ghazis were certainly going to charge and if the Crusader foot ordered a retreat that would be a charge response to the Ghazis and would happen first, whereupon the Templars with a Charge order would be able to charge the Ghazis.

The Knights did not have an initial clear path to the Ghazis (or any other enemy unit). Being a Crusader army they could have charged through using Crusader mixed order. Was the Charge order for the Knights illegal? Would it only have been legal if the foot had a Deploy order and done Crusader mixed order? If so, would that have halted the Ghazis charge (because their initial target was infantry rather than cavalry)? [The Templars could have an ordered charge on the Ghazis if they were within normal movement range at the time of Charge declarations. Remember, you can see through other units. You would be disordered, charging through non-skirmisher foot, UNLESS the foot had a Deploy order (Crusaders may use Crusader Mixed Order), then no problem. The Ghazis would also be charging and would NOT have their own charge cancelled but would hit the Templars. Once you're moving at charge speed, it was difficult to stop unless you were skirmishers.]

Jerry wrote

1) Why do you modify the die roll when checking morale but the to hit number is modified during missile fire? People in my experience like to know what they need to roll before they roll. Seems odd, to me anyway that it's not consistent. [With missile fire, you will be rolling several dice. By modifying the To Hit number, you can figure out exactly what your die rolls have to be to get hits before rolling them. The hardest thing people have to get used to is using 'negative' modifiers, but that new orientation lasts about ten seconds. We used to have the morale roll set up the same way when we first came out with the rules, but people just couldn't get used to having to roll 'low' for morale results or use 'negative' modifiers (which we do for missile fire anyway), so we made it so that you modify the die rolls. Once you start playing, it is quick and easy...the results we wanted.]

2) Foundry basing. In the army list close order cavalry are listed as three to a base, e.g. 2-6 Companion HC Elite(T), Lance, 3 @ 14. In the Foundry basing scheme (pg. 6) close order cavalry are listed two to a stand. If you get three per stand, how? [We are not deluding ourselves or anybody else. No one is going to rebase figures for rules. Myself included. All of the armies used so far in demo games, tournaments or 'fun' games have been based for the WRG/DBX systems. For WRG/DBX basing, use the 'figures per stand' quoted in the army lists. For Foundry basing (to accommodate those players who use WHAB), ignore the 'figures per stand' wording and refer to that instead as 'strength per stand'. Your Companions have a strength of three whether you have one, two or three figures on them. When playing against armies with different basing, simply place the smaller based figures (Foundry based) on larger stands (cut out cardboard, cardstock, whatever) so that they correspond in frontage and depth. On the back of each stand, have a sticker or taped piece of paper with the troop type, armor class, morale and training, weaponry and strength. Before the game, both players should go through their army and explain to their opponent what each unit is, in respect to type, armor an weaponry (you can keep morale a 'secret' until the unit in question is required to test. Even though in the Foundry basing you actually have only two physical figures based, they still have a strength of three for melee, casualties, etc.]

Jim Pitts writes:

For the past several days I've been inventorying my 15mm medieval forces and trying top match the myriad of units to specific MW armies so I can be better prepared to buy needed figures at a local convention coming up in three weeks. I've run into a bit of a quandary with the Viking and Conquest Period Saxon army lists. So at the risk of asking a question that has already been asked and answered, here goes:

What types of weapons constitute the category "various" for these two armies? In the Viking army, huscarls/hird HI, Viking LAI, and hird & Viking archers are all listed with "various" being a basic weapon or weapon option. In the Saxon army, huscarl HI and the several types of Danes are listed the same way. [Various implies a unit without a specific weapon in use. Men in these groups carried a variety of weapons, some axes, javelins, even bows. They have the ability to fire one shot at javelin range before going out of missiles, and may fight with a rank and a half in close combat. Being out of missiles does not take away the Various close combat factor, as it does for javelins.]

As to the several types of archers, does the "various" weapon give them a better melee capability than an archer just armed with a bow? If so, how would you portray this mix on the stands of a unit? [Definitely! Archers have no weapon factor and fight only with their front rank. I use a mixture of axemen, javelinmen and an odd archer on my Viking and Saxon stands.]