Dear Terry,

I represent the Historical Miniatures Association (HMA), a 45-members (and growing) organization devoted to the hobby of military history and warfare simulation in miniature. The purpose of this letter is to prop a year-long trade of our organization's respective publications.

After following reviews of your publication in several issues of MWAN, I feel SAGA would enhance the HMA membership by its quality of wargaming material for the Ancients time period. Hopefully, you will find the HMA's journal, the DISPATCH, just as useful. Enclosed is a copy for your review.

The DISPATCH, a quarterly 44-page publication, covers miniature wargaming for the all periods of land, air, and naval military history. The readership of our two-year-old group reaches throughout Texas and the surrounding states.

HMA wishes to integrate with other wargaming communities to further promote the hobby of historical miniatures through information exchange In proposing this publication trade, our goal is that SAGA and HMA will cultivate: 1) a better regional and national understanding of the hobby for our members, 2) increased readership, 3) a national forum for the exchange of ideas, and 4) improved publications through shared author and article information. To reach these goals I will include SAGA in the DISPATCH's new column MILITARY HISTORY JOURNAL REVIEWS. Guest authors, interviews, and tournament guests are other possibilities we may negotiate.

Please feel at liberty to contact me at the following address or phone number for further discussion of this proposal. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
David Reeves, HMA Director

My dear Mr. Gore,

Your letter in MWAN 146 and your review of Tactica in MWAN #43 combined with my own current wargamiag interests prompted me to drop you a line. Since I've just seat off my most recent contributions to the magazine, I decided to include copies for you since my comments (aside from the 18th century naval game battle report) might fall into your own areas of interest.

My own experiment with the rules in question was extremely brief and tentative but also essentially unsatisfactory. I still like to think that a battle between Romans and barbarians with interesting terrain might hold some promise, but I an considerably less sanguine about the prospect than I was prior to my single trial.

I would very much like to see your article taking the reader step by step through a battle using WRG 7th. I have a copy of the rules, but have never been able to work my through with any understanding of what Mr. Barker is talking about. I suspect that groups who work together on interpretation have the advantage of us 'lone warriors'.

A friend of mine who I see every few months does game ancients-first It was Shock of Impact which they eventually found unsatisfactory. They tried developing their own rules but didn't care for them. I put something together which he liked but his opponent didn't. They tried Newbury Fast Play Rules and KATHHA without finding what they were looking for. Then they met some other players who understood WRG 7th and were initiated into the mysteries. They had fun until some things In the rules perturbed them-I remember a complaint about the invincibility of 48 man barbarian units (I suggested that flank or rear attacks must have an effect but they insisted they could find nothing in the rules that indicated this). Then they tried Tactical and had fun until serious flaws in the system ruined it for then (you can set up an army in column so that the enemy infantry can never mount a flank attack, diagonal deployment allows you to roll up the enemy army, etc.). The last I heard from him they seemed to be quite happy with Ancients A-Z.

I was interested in the article by Michael Guth in the most recent Courier about the flaws of Tactical for gaming in the Peloponnesian War, since this is the period that my own rules are designed for. You will note that my own comments in "Moak's Corner* (written before seeing the Courier article) echo some of Guth's remarks.

Another area involves the army lists (where others besides yourself have been critical) which seem to me extremely unsatisfactory for those of us who like trying to do campaigns (I confess that of the campaigns that I have begun the majority remain unfinished- there is always something that comes up, is at there?). Regardless. the rules provide only for one off battles which is no t something that can hold my interest. I can play the board game Ancients for that &ad have much greater flexibility at such long expense.

Sorry to have taken up so much space with so little content. I do look forward to what you write for MWAN since it so often informative and thought provoking and hope you can find to time to reply to this letter.

--The Vy. Rev. ielred Glidden, OSB Prior & Novice Master

In reference to your 48-man warband invulnerability, Aeldred, it is difficult to break a unit of this size (representing 2400 actual men), but it can be done. First of all, this unit can be disordered, whereby it takes a brutal -2 in all melees. It can also be shaken if you can mange to rout a neighbor within 3" and the warband fails its waver test (morale). After that, each tine it is charged, it must take another test and a further failure will rout it.

Jamie Fish is working on a set of rules which can be integrated into the WRG 7th system to form a campaign. I hope to have more an these later an maybe these can be run at HISTORICON next year as an alternative to the straight tournaments for those who don't especially like the high-intensity contests. --TG

Dear Terry,

I have been "thinking" about SAGA for a long time, here is $10 if you are still putting it out. Has anyone been stimulated to write anything about Assyrians by the now Minifigs?

Is there still a UK SOA? I sent my $35 off to Chris Parker back in January, and never received anything. I have been a member of the SOA for over ten years . . . But then, I was the bad tempered Roman. Somehow, the game isn't the same in this country. Someday I will get a Slingshot index and track down the article proving the Assyrians (I have a 25mm Army) are (were) a lost cause. Rost of my back issues are in a warehouse in Chicago. In "Success Rates of Armies" Imperial Romans were second only to Assyrians in lack of success.

Always roll Up!

--Karl Gaarsoe

Dear Terry,

How are things with you? I hope that you are picking up new subscribers to the SAGA. I've been recruiting for you in Michigan. That's not to say I've had a ton of success but there seems to be some interest.

I've joined the Miniature Gamers of Michigan, the group that I game with plays WRG 7th two nights a month. We play it tournament style with the NASAMW regulations. My success has been limited to not existant. ( Gee, what a negative letter so far.) As a matter of fact, my Early Crusaders got there clock cleaned last night. I have a feeling that these learning experiences will end soon though and the boys will get there act together.

I have a question for you concerning a generals ability to rally a unit if there are more than two elements in the generals body. In SAGA vol. IV, no. 3 Phil Barker states that the generals body must catch the routers or shaken unit. Does he mean that the general can contact the unit or must be in the path of the unit?

In the enclosed diagram, unit A is a generals body with two elements, it has joined unit B to rally it in the approach phase. Unit E is heavy infantry the is virtually in contact with both A and B, a crowded situation to say the least. Units C and D charge straight ahead claiming a flank attack on the generals body. My question is, shouldn't the generals; body form at he head of the heavy cavalry unit?

Last I would like to let you know-and invite you to any of the next three events that MGM will be organizing. If you think you can make it to any of them let me know and I will give you directions and who to contact.

These events are:

Peninsula Campaigns II - Kalamazoo, MI Aug. 18, 1990

Ucon - Univ. of Mich. Ann Arbor,MI Oct. 12-14,1990

Pro or Con III - Wayne, MI Nov. 17th, 1990

Ucon is a full scale convention, the other two are strictly miniatures with P or C III having a sanctioned WRG tournament.

Take Care Terry and let em' roll.

--Bob Spear

(Referring to Bob's diagram, I would say no, the general's body would not form in the front rank of unit B. He would only form in the front rank of a mounted unit if he joined it to fight (Pg.34, Para 5) not to rally it from shaken or rout.)

Dear Mr. Gore.

I am not a subscriber to the SAGA Newsletter. A good friend of mine does subscribe. I have been considering subscribing, but probably will not. My decision has to do with the quality or your editorial comments.

In SAGA Newsletter, Vol. IV, No. 4, you state that the Battle of Murthul River in 109 (108?) B.C. would be impossible to play under TACTICA because of the 'battleline' rule. Normally I could care less what one might say on a subject like this, but I detest the spread of misinformation and the absolute unfairness of what you stated. If you had ever bothered to read the TACTICA rules, let alone play them, you would know that the Battleline' rule does not apply at all to Roman cohortal legions or their barbarian opponents. TACTICA games which involve Romans and barbarians are typically free wheeling battles which, in my experience, include flank and rear assaults, intermingled units, virtual collapses or Roman and/or barbarian lines. myriad direction changes and attacks galore. Certainly enough to satisfy any lead pusher.

You are an editor. As an editor, you have an obligation to comment responsibly on important new hobby developments and products. It is evident that your reporting on TACTICA has been based upon uninformed prejudice. You have failed your responsibilities.

Sincerely,

--John D. Bicknell

Dear Mr. Gore,

Well, as usual when I quick react, I have an apology to make. While 108/109 B.C. would be near the borderline between manipular/cobortal periods, the Roman Army at the Battle Of the Murthal River would Probably have been manipuiar. And yes. in TACTICA. manipular armies do have a battleline restriction. It is, however. much relaxed from the earlier phalanx type battleline.

The real point of the letter I wrote is that your comment implied that the free wheeling battle you described is not possible under the TACTICA system. That is both untrue and unfair. Even the manipular period is fairly wild and the cohortal period battles are very much like the wild affair you described.

I am not sufficiently knowledgeable of WRG to debate which rule set is superior, more realistic, more historical. But TACTICA gets a lot of bad press from writers who, I believe, have not played the game. The comments I read in magazines ranging from SAGA to the Courier assault the single breaking unit victory conditions and battleline rules to death. (A two note attack as worn out as the one note assault on WRG regarding historical opponents). Neither or those rules apply to all the periods the rules system covers. Additionally, the basic TACrICA system is for 'fair and open' battles. Historical battles are possible with variant orders of battle and rules modifications. I designed a Gaugamela scenario with variant OB's and special rules for two Macedonian battlelines and for maneuvering the Hypaspists.

The bottom fine is that we all play with toy soldiers for intellectual stimulation, fun and maybe some historical insight. The 'best' rule set in any period has its questionable points and the 'worst' rule set has its points of merit. TACTICA is run and produces exciting games. I don't know if it is any more or less historically accurate than WRG. Neither WRG nor TACTICA is going to truly put anyone in Alexander's sandals.

In closing, I apologize for the 'go for the jugular' tone of my first letter. I do urge you to try out TACTICA, give it a fair test drive and even handed press. And I'll reconsider subscribing - I freely admit I have a lot to learn about ancient military history and SAGA is as good a bobby periodical as any for continuing my education.

(I'm glad John wrote. After his first letter, I (in righteous indignation) was about to fire off a response "If you wish to tell me how to edit my own newsletter, at least subscribe to it..." Anyway, I do applaud your willingness to take a stand and support it intelligently and with scholarship. As you know, I feel controversy is healthy for our hobby and welcome differing opinions - otherwise things stagnate. I confess, I never could bring myself to play TACTICA - I do own the rules, have read them several times and observed a "few" game. I just can't see them as interesting for me. If you enjoy them, fine, after all, that's what out hobby is all about. I review things as I see them, of course, and my opinions are personal and prejudiced by my historian's viewpoint, it's true. If John does decide to subscribe, he'll find a newsletter with lively discussions in the future as well!)