From: Michael O'Shaughnessy

Terry,

I started playing Ancients back in the mid-1970s, having been inspired by Charles Grant's "The Ancient Wargame", a little gem of a book, still probably the best book ever written about wargaming. I was an enthusiastic player of WRG 5th & 6th Editions in 25mm.

My problems began with 7th Edition. Almost all local gamers switched to 15mm, feeling that 7th Edition was better suited to 15mm rather than 25mm. I stuck with 6th Edition and 25mm. I soon became one of a dwindling band. When my brother emigrated in the late 1980s, my ancient armies went into storage and I switched to 25mm Napoleonics. I did continue to subscribe to "Slingshot". It was only when I read your articles and Neil Hammond's reviews in "Slingshot" that my latent enthusiasm was rekindled. About the same time, Foundry released their Assyrian range. I immediately decided to build an AW Assyrian army, even though I'd never seen a copy of the rules Having now had the opportunity to read the AW rules via the group, I have to say that I am delighted with them. Through reading the examples on the Saga web site and following the rules discussions in the group, I now feel that I've got a handle on the AW rules and am ready to start gaming with them. There are one or two other local gamers willing to try rules other than DBM and WHAB so hopefully I'll be able to arrange a playtesting at one of our monthly meetings. I'll keep you advised.

I must say that your support of both AW & MW through SAGA magazine, the web site and the discussion group is excellent, though I would like to see a bit more about AW.

[Ed. That will be rectified in the very near future as we work on the AW army lists in preparation for their release.]

I'm convinced that both rule sets will gain an enthusiastic following once they have been published by Foundry. In my opinion, they can occupy the middle ground between DBM and WHAB. They are not as abstracted as DBM (I simply cannot call a chariot a knight) nor are they as dice driven as WHAB. Furthermore, the army lists are intelligible even to those who don't use the rules. The same cannot be said of DBM. They are also a lot sounder historically than those produced for WHAB. I'm not condemning DBM or WHAB. I'm merely stating in general terms why I prefer AW/MW. Another plus for your rules is that they are designed to be played with in 25mm.

The growth in sales of companies such as Foundry and Gripping Beast in the U.K. shows that there has been a significant swing from 15mm to 25mm, particularly in Ancients. You should stress the compatibility of your rules with 25/30 mm figures. I'm sure Foundry will.

In closing, I would echo Ravi's request for more battle reports. Also, thanks for all the effort you put into supporting the rules. You deserve to have that effort rewarded.

[Ed. Thanks Michael. If there are ever any questions, do not hesitate to send them to me.]

From: Graham Nolan

Army Morale and SI

This has probably been discussed at some length before but I'm new to the group and there are 5000+ messages on there. As it is I found a couple of statements from you on the issue of skirmishers and their effect on army morale. You replied to one question I did come across that, Yes, routing/lost skirmishers did count towards the army morale total (Is it > 25% and you lose the game? I don't have the rules here at work). Elsewhere you mention that the rest of the army weren't that bothered about skirmishers running away because that was what they were supposed to do.

I ask because we've had a couple of games where it was the loss of several skirmish units that has caused a side to lose the battle when, in points value, they were worth at most 5-10% of the value of the army. We've discussed whether this was realistic. It seems a little harsh when all the heavily armoured and trained and equipped guys are still out there not even getting scratched.

[Yes, skirmish units do count toward army morale failure (once 1/3 of the units in an army have been lost, routed or have run off the table, the army is in a morale failure mode) Skirmishers routing do not cause morale tests on units seeing them, however.

The reason that skirmish units count toward army morale failure forces you to use them realistically. You cannot just hang them out to die. You are quite literally forced to have them run away if they are threatened, or else they count as a lost unit. Is this realistic? I believe so as their function was not to stand and fight (and in AW/MW they will be destroyed if contacted by closer order troops), but to harass and run away when threatened. The rules force you to use them historically.]

Terry,

Your answer re: SI along with me reading your Tactics article (which is excellent btw) has confirmed my vague notion that we had been using skirmishers incorrectly. Not against the rules but more against how they were used historically and effectively.

We had been having them as part of the line with 'responsibility' for their bit that they were to defend with their missile fire. This kept on failing of course as they were dislodged very easily and the line ruptured at that point with the all to obvious consequences. They were often meleed by other skirmishers but neither side had been 'screening' a more valuable unit - the attackers were actually acting as shock troops - the defenders, heavy infantry! I think that we also had our armies stretched over too wide a frontage. Probably more a case of using the table space than anything else (my group is relatively new to Medieval/Ancient period). Still it's great to learn by experience. I can't wait to have the next game now.