From: Rob Robertson

1. Let's say a unit of foot (any sort) is in single rank line and has the rear edges of its stands against, but not inside, some dense woods. The foot unit is charged by some heavy, irregular cavalry. The melee ensues and the foot survives, but is pushed back INTO the woods. Does the cavalry have to pursue into the woods? It was our understanding that the horse would not have had to charge the foot if the foot had been inside the woods at the start of the turn, but we didn't know how to handle pursuit, follow up, etc.

[No. Only Fanatics are required to pursue into disordering terrain, this includes Warbands up to their first round of close combat as they are considered Fanatics until then. Non-fanatic mounted or foot are not required to follow into disordering terrain.]

2. If a unit is already in shieldwall, can it be given a deploy order to go into Crusader order, do so (letting a horde of knights through its ranks), then end up in shieldwall afterwards (i.e., automatically at the next turn)? It seemed to me that the shieldwall would at least have the "break up" then be re-established on a subsequent turn (which, would, by my count force use of two deploy orders), but we couldn't find anything to substantiate this one way or another.

[You cannot be in two special formations at the same time, only one. You played it correctly. No matter how many sections of "what ifs" you put in a rules set, there will always be new things coming up. Using logic is the way to figure these things out. You guys can come up here and play a game at my house anytime! Nice to see these situations come to a sensible conclusion.]

From: Dennis Frank

Finally had a chance to actually play Terry Gore's Fast Play version of Medieval Warfare yesterday and had a great time. As a diehard DBA player, a simple, easy to grasp set of rules is obviously what I look for. At first glance there seem to be too many charts and things to keep track of in this series, but FPMW proved to be a game I could get a handle on after just a couple of turns. It helped that Terry was there to answer questions, but that just speeded up the process. The basic rhythm of the game is clear immediately and the details of play are grasped by the third turn. By the end of the game I only needed a cursory check of the modifier tables to make sure I was calculating combat factors properly.

With 6 players, mostly new to the system, and about 36 units on the table between the two sides, the game reached a point where the game-masters could choose a winner after less than 2 hours. I'm sure we would have finished in not much more than an hour if we'd been familiar with the game, or we could have played on to see just how badly the Scots were routed! Since that was my side of the table, a merciful ending was appreciated. (Besides, I went on to win the gladiatorial competition later in the afternoon.)

My only problem with the game is the cardboard on the table, but they're working on that, too, and there's less of it than there was when I looked at Ancient Warfare a few years ago.

For anyone looking for an introductory/easy to play/quick wargame in this era, I can recommend FPMW as an interesting alternative to DBA. The flavors of the games are different enough that both can be played, and enjoyed, without confusion. And if I can figure it out in an hour I suspect anybody can!

From: Davis Family

So far I have found MW to be the best thing out. I'm partial to the combat tables in 7th edition, probably because I loved the game. I do think that you have done a big service to ancient wargaming and I'm looking forward to the final product. I'll be in line to buy a copy.

I am disappointed so far in what I've seen in Warrior. I really expected a more American, and more readable rewrite. I hope both (or either if it has to be that way) set is successful. DBM has turned me off to ancients for so long that I have dust and cobwebs on my armies. I do think a few of the lists are flawed, and I'd like to have the time to help. (No promises, I'm in the middle of getting out of the Air Force and looking for an air line job).

The most positive thing I've seen about MW is that they are pretty complete and if questions come up they are answered pretty quickly then put to bed. I don't know if the same can be done for Warrior. Too many people have their way of playing 7th Edition and they aren't willing to change. Ican't help but think these rules are doomed without a MAJOR rewrite. I hope I'm wrong. It seems to me that the two sets are very similar, but the new approach you have offered may save Ancients. I've enjoyed playing Devil's Advocate and I hope this discussion will improve the hobby.

Again, I don't like to complain without an offer to help the situation. If you need any help let me know. I am trying to get some research together for a few army lists, but I'm moving slow right now.

Good luck and I wish MW/AW the best, If you know of anyoneplaying in South Georgia let me know. If I can I plan on doing a demo at the local Fantasy store, hopefully, I can keep my kids and some others from becoming Games Workshop slaves and keep historical miniatures alive. W Davis

From: Dave Bonk

OK Terry,

With your introduction to the Mongol list you have stumbled into one of my quagmires. Editorial comments: Mongols were successful in the 1240's no one can doubt that, but was it a case of European incompetence and/or bad luck or Mongol superiority? Perhaps a little of both, but more of the former.

The more I investigate the Mongol success in this period, the more I am convinced that the Mongols just did what they did best and the Europeans stumbled badly. First, it always amazes me when anyone suggests, and almost all articles tend to do this, that the Mongols were successful because they introduced some exotic steppe army tactics, feigned flight, massed horse archers, etc. that the Rus/East Europeans just couldn't cope with. The Rus/E.Europeans should have been more than acquainted with those tactics...hell, for two hundred years they had dealt with the Pechenegs and recently the Cumans, who practiced the same tactics...while they had never run into the Mongols before, they should have been ready for the tactics.

Pride goeth before the fall...that can explain some of the Mongol success. The Rus were cocky and got crushed. The Poles actually had some early success against the Mongols, defeating some of the early incursions. At Liegnitz I question whether there were 40,000 Poles vs. 20,000 Mongols...I believe the figure of 20,000 Mongols, but think the Polish figure is much too high...I suspect it was an even match-up. In addition, I suspect that the Mongols forces were supplemented by large numbers of enslaved former enemies, forced to fight for the Mongols. I think Liegnitz was a much closer battle than we tend to give credit for. Why did the Mongols win...a couple of Polish mistakes, first they didn't wait for the Bohemians to show up before engaging the Mongols. Second, one of the Polish battles inexplicably ran away at a critical juncture and then the Poles were confused by the Mongol use of smoke/poison gas. None of this diminishes the Mongol victory, they were smarter and once the rout started they were good at exploiting it, but in a one to one stand up fight they were actually losing the battle.

As for the strategic brilliance of the Mongol invasion I tend to reject that also. I think that the main Mongol tactic was push as long as you can, using the subjected troops to absorb the most casualties and then once you meet resistance fall back. I think that is what happened at Liegnitz...the Mongols got their nose bloodied in the process of winning the battle, lost many of their subjected troops, couldn't take fortified strongholds and headed south to link up with their forces in Hungary.

As for the Hungarians, again, poor leadership and Mongol smarts were at work. First, the Hungarians sealed their fate when they drove away the Cumans. The Cumans knew how to fight the Mongols and combined with the westernized Hungarian knights would have posed a real problem for the Mongols.

From: David Smith

This should probably be directed to Perry. In the early German list (AW), all of the Generals including the CinC are listed as HC. Is it not plausible that a sub-general (basically a tribal warlord), be listed as HI with an option to upgrade to HC. There are many accounts (Ceasar, Tacitus, and Plutarch), that refer to German cavalry leaping off of their mounts to fight on foot, or cavalry accompanied by foot warriors. Additionally, when the Romans recruited the German nobles into the Auxiliary, they usually re-issued them all with new mounts, believing that the German horse was inferior. I would propose that German Generals be listed as HI with a stand of 4 figures, with the option to upgrade to HC. Additionally, I'm still not sure that the cunei (wedge), was a tactical formation used by all the Germans. Particularly those that fought in denser terrain. I would suggest that those loose order stands of 3 figures not be allowed to wedge, which assumes that they fought in a much looser formation, and therefore unable to wedge.

Also, I was wondering if trained troops should not get a +1 in close combat, perhaps reflecting their small unit cohesion, and tactical leadership (maybe as an optional rule). I noticed that it was fairly easy for irregular troops to charge frenzied which supplied them with a +3, a fairly hefty modifier, of which, trained troops are unable to counter. I know the disadvantages of going frenzied, but in a short battle, I would be willing to let my warband go frenzied, and hope they carve a large swathe through the enemy battleline...which is what happened to me in my game with Jevon. Just some thoughts-post Historicon.

[I have no problem with your suggestion that the German commanders be HI. Let me look at these lists in the next few weeks (once we have finished the MW ones...almost done) and see what changes we have in store. Wedges are of a similar nature, we'll look at this too, but the wedge for loose order really only picks you up an extra stand for a four stand unit in combat (various fight a rank and a half anyway). Once you fight, you fall out of wedge into a disordered line...if you lose, you are also pushed back and disordered again, so fragmented. Wedge is a risky formation at times!

Insofar as Trained units getting a +1, they seem to do pretty well as it is. We ran several demo games and tournaments at the conventions over the last few years and though on paper it looks like the frenzied warbands have a huge initial advantage, they really don't.

Usually, they are unarmored, so the trained unit gets two points for that. Also, most trained units fight at least two complete ranks deep, so all get to fight. On top of that, the trained units have a strength of 4 per stand vrs. most warbands with 3 per stand, so they get another +1. If the trained unit is charging, they get the same charge 1/2 d6 roll as the warbands. All of a sudden, the frenzied warbands have no real combat advantage over trained.

The big advantage of Trained units is in their ability to maneuver. Let's say the warband is 6" away (in 25mm). The Trained unit can issued a Deploy order. If the enemy warband charges (which it is required to do unless possessing a Recover order), the Trained unit can opt to fall back 2", often pulling it far enough back so that the warband chargers will fall short and be disordered! I feel that the Trained units, while requiring a bit more thought and finesse to handle correctly (as was the reality of warfare in the ancient and medieval periods), offer substantial advantages over their barbarian adversaries. Of course, that's why I like Galatians!]