From Fred Ellsesser:

Dear Terry,

I have been following with some interest the controversy concerning WRG 7th and the rules amendments. I frankly find Mr. Barker's attitude (at least as I discern it from his writing) to be somewhat supercilious. The 7th edition is not graven in stone; 'house rules' pertain to all our games regardless of the rules set. Although Mr. Barker is unquestionably talented and knowledgable, the WRG rules simply represent one interpretation of historical events. I see no serious problem with amendments AS LONG AS THE PLAYERS AGREE and as long as the amendments are unequivocally presented as local 'house rules'.

If NASAMW is running the game, it seems reasonable to allow them to lay down the ground rules. It also seems reasonable to allow players to choose the rules that are agreeable to both sides. If I'm not mistaken, the Society of Ancients has no requirement for a particular rule set to be used; choice is left to mutual agreement of the players. After all, the rules don't win the game, the players do. It seems not unlike the American League team playing; there are differences between the two that must be accounted for but it's still the same game. And it's just a game.

Perhaps I should have stated this first, but these are the views of an outsider. I don't play WRG. My group uses Newbury's Fast Play for our ancients games. I own copies of both 6th and 7th edition. The 6th edition was incomprehensible and the 7th seems a big improvement, but I'm still, going to have to be talked through a game.

In closing, I agree with your sentiment as expressed in 'The Positive Aspects of Controversy' in the latest MWAN. Debate is fun and stimulating ; we can all learn from other's opinions. Hal Thinglum put a nice cap on it when he said " ... we are playing with toy soldiers; we are not dictating world policy." By the way, my only real problem with SAGA is it doesn't come out often enough. Keep up the good work.

From Mike Huyett

Dear Terry,

After much pondering I have decided to renew my subscription to SAGA. Though I do not use any of the WRG sets of rules I am very interested in your articles on the Medieval period. Though I am but one subscriber I would like to see something now and then on Asia and the Middle East (Mongols, Mamlukes, Saracens, Seljuks, etc.).

I have enclosed a blank money order for $15.00. Please note I have left it blank. I would like to think that there is common ground for beer and pretzel and WRG gamers. I believe it would only help the hobby grow. There are those that believe 'my kind' are 'trash gamers' and should be ignored as we bring discredit to the hobby. If you are of this latter opinion and I have stumbled upon a newsletter not meant for me, I would kindly request that you return my money order and neither of us will be the worse for it. If, on the other hand, it does not matter that I listen to the sound of a different drummer and that we can all contribute something to this hobby, then as long as you print I will subscribe.

(Ed. Mike's letter caught me a bit off guard ... have I given the impression that I demean or otherwise look down on gamers who don't use WRG? I hope not, as I enjoy trying new rules and am constantly on the search for a good beer and pretzels ancient rules system. Mike, if you get a chance, look at some older issues of SAGA, or Hal Thinglum's MWAN. I believe you'll find that your kindly editor has actually published some rules of his own and they are most certainly of the beer and pretzels variety! Like Mike, I too believe that both competitive WRG gamers and the more relaxed 'fun' gamers are necessary for the hobby to grow. Look at SAGA's new co-editor, Gary Comardo's rules. He likes them short and sweet, lots of dice, a little role-playing, and yet they always give you the right feel for the period. Any one can sit down and play ... and from the interested players, a few will want to go on to a more complex system, but others will be just as happy with a less complicated set. I like both! --TG)

From Michael Ireland

Terry:

You may remember me from Simcon 89, I was the brave soul playing the flank of the victorious Norman army in the mega-battle. I am writing set-up a subscription to S.A.G.A for the Ottawa Society of Ancient Gamers. Enclosed is the US$7.00 that Perry told me was the amount required for a one year subscription.

I do not personally plan to attend Historicon this year, but there may be a few of us going. Hope to see you around at future tournaments.

(Ed. - Mike had the unenviable task of holding back a major attack by -_ Nik. Byz. on Dave Armer's Normans. He did a masterful job with a handful of skirmisher types and I beiieve he was awarded the 'Best General' trophy! Unfortunately, Mike, subscriptions are now $15.00; $18.00 Canadian ... just send me the difference. --TG)

The following was sent from Ian Greenwood, editor of SLINGSHOT in response to a note I sent to him explaining my position vis-a-vis the rules controversy'. Ian wished to keep up a dialogue we had started about army lists and wedges ...

Your own Late Norman list looks thoroughly comprehensive Q cannot comment further - it's out of my period). It occurs to me that, but for the WRG nomenclature, you could commission army lists from trusted experts, include a page of explanation and another of source materials, and publish a really useful booklet. This would engender debate about the accuracy of the lists, but at least it would be debate directed at the author of the lists, and at least the rule-set would not intervene. Must Army Lists tie in with some rule-set or other? Maybe not...

Your comment on wedges is interesting. You seem to advocate a "swarm" of horsemen forming a wedge shape. Possibly, although I should like to compare the idea with some modern counterpart. But surely, the effectiveness of the wedge under Barker argues that it Is-& definite unit formation, rather than a random swarm? The Viking swynfylking mentioned by Ian Heath in his 1976 "Armies of the Dark Ages" book and picked up by wargamers ever since is stated to have had sword and axemen In the front rank, then spearmen, then archers, slingers and javelinmen. I wish I could remember where in the sources Heath found this swynfylking. I just hope it is not a literary formation culled, like berserkers, from Icelandic fiction.

I suggest that unless very carefully trained, any unit swarming in wedge-shape will, far from cutting a swathe through opposition lines, get a very bloody nose. I think that's why battle-lines were formed in the first place. More discussion on this needed in SAGA!

Enough for now. Keep me posted, and continue the good work!

The latest from Phil Barker

Dear Terry,

Actually , the one-page quick rules you played with were the one-off DBSA set specifically for a competition at the S of A conference in November.

The commercial DBA set is an elaboration of these, in which the battle rules are enIarged to 2 facing pages to differentiate massed archers from skirmishers and allow artillery and Hussite war wagons and are joined by Richard Bodley Scott's mini campaign system. It includes 207 one-line army lists, each of which also lists historical opponents pIus 38 historical campaigns for up to 6 players. This brings it up to 16 pages.

Richard and the SWAMP crowd (South Wales Ancient and MedievaI Players) have already held a number of one-day campaigns and are pIanning a two day event early next year in which the first half og the competition splits players into campaigns and the second is round robin individual games.

Interestingly, while the rules are identical regardless of army era, they only work really well if the opponents are fairly close contemporaries. Still with only 25-40 figures needed for an army, anyone can afford to provide one or an opponent's to lend out.

We hope the set will appeal to beginners, to the old and jaded like me, to those short of money, time or space, and to the compulsive army buyer. It isn't intended to replace more complex sets. Both kinds have their advantages.

You still hold the record for the fastest wipe out of the rule author, so here is the latest version. I'm having a quiet time painting and getting over the trip to Italy to umpire the Rome Internationals. Only 28 players, about half Italian, the rest French, Belgian, British, German and Greek in that order. Interesting to hear a French-speaking Belgian and a Frenchmen arguing over the rules -- in broken English.

I was In the wrong job though. I spent an hour at the Rome club the night I arrived teaching them DBSA through an Interpreter. Next day, while I was busy refereeing, I saw one of them teaching DBSA to 3 delightful brunnettes in a public participation game!

From James L. Boyd

Dear Mr. Gore,

Thank you for the prompt reply concerning the S.A.G.A newsletter. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter and I would like to look at the last two Issues so I have enclosed my check for $20.

I have enclosed our latest Issue of THE DISPATCH for you to look at. I am the President of The Historical Miniatures Association, Inc. (HMO) which was established In 1987 to fill a void of organization that we had In our part of the world. Since that time we. have held several events and tournaments In Texas and our next big event is Clash of Empires II held Slugust 19-20 In Austin, Temas. This event along with others are described In THE OISPRTCH.

I would like to extend an Invitation to you to join HMO. Our membership fee Is $20 a year. This entities our members to a one year subscription to THE DISPATCH ( four issues currently ) and discount entry fees to our events. I would also like to invite you and those that play ancients in your area to come to the Clash of Empires II tournament in August. If any others In your area may be interested In joining HMO they can reach me at the corporate address In THE DISPATCH or at my home address.

From Tom Downs

Dear Terry

I am writing as a follow-up to our conversation concerning the Medieval Study Group. I spoke to Jim Hill on the subject and he is amenable to the idea, although there are still many unanswered questions concerning the functioning of these groups.

Jim's inclination is to establish multiple study groups with each one addressing a rather specific area. Some examples are: the Normans from Dublin to Jerusalem; the British Isles; the Hundred Years War etc. I see two problems with this approach. The first is that I will be very surprised if we get a large enough response to staff this many groups. The second is that one of the points of this project is that it will facilitate sharing research, bibliography etc. among ourselves. If the thing is sub-divided too much, this communication will become difficult.

The suggestion which I have conveyed to Jim is that the Study Group as a whole be divided into three work groups. One would cover Western Europe--the British Isles, France, the Low Countries, Italy and Switzerland. One would cover Eastern Europe-Germany, Hungary, Poland, Bohemia and the enemies of the Teutonic Knights. The third would cover the Crusades i.e..Spain, Outremer and the Knights of St. John post-1291.

My suggestion for the official date range is 1096-1485. I opt for 1096 because the launching of the First Crusade was a strong manifestation of the social/cultural unity of Western Europe which makes the period so interesting. Of course, this does not mean that the activities of the Normans in the 11th century must be excluded from our consideration. Similarly, the closing date will vary from country to country. By and large, the closing dates on the lists are appropriate guides.

Many of the mechanics of study groups such as how to communicate with the membership at large are still unclear. I would appreciate your views on any of the above matters.

I was quite interested in your piece in the current Spearpoint. You are quite right that it is not a tournament-style 'killer' army. It would be an interesting one to try to master. I suspect that anyone playing it would come to appreciate the greatness of Bohemond or Robert Guiscard.

This sounds like a terrific idea to me. Any suggestions from SAGA subscribers? --TG