Phil Viverito

I was sorry that I did not see you at Cold Wars '92. I'm not sure If it was that I just did not see you or that you weren't there. In the event you were not present, I will brief you.

Well The Lancaster Resort, where the convention was held, is nothing short of huge! There seemed to be plenty of room for expansion. Not having been to Cold Wars before I was surprised at the number of participants. Plenty of gamers and vendors (who fill all our spontaneous buying Impulses).

To get to the non-WRG area you had to cross through table after table of WRG gamers who appeared blood thirsty as ever. I am sure Scott Holder did another fine job. Scott was aided in his endeavour with a Mac Computer and that's ok 'cause its in the latest rule Interpretations, page 99, section 10, paragraph 305, subparagraph 45, line 1001. Tactics and DBA were both present and popular. I was very happy to see the WRG players back in the same convention and not 5 miles down the road. To see tournament players in a national competition is good for the hobby.

There was an excellant American Civil War game In 54's; "City Fight Fredricksburg" William (Keyser) ran Vaslmy to Waterloo scenarios which I did not see but heard good to excellant comments on. "Where the Reindeer Do Not Go" was an Interesting WW II Soviet-German encounter. Hap Jordan ran his new Napoleonic figures (by the thousands it seemed), I have tons of pictures for him. Naps game must have been good because it started at 6.00 pm and ran until 1.00 am and It looked like the players wanted more. Much to my excitement there was a huge game "Siege at Alesia" hosted by Mike Granziano. It was an outstandna presentation. double walled Roman iortifcations which ran about 16 feet on all 4 sides. Mike used WRG Rules and after seeing Classical Hack I he asked about using them at Historicon '92. Mike is considering running 3 such Alesia games at Hlstoricon '92; I game with WRG, I with Tactica, and I with Classical Hack I.

There was tons to do and see but I missed most of it as I ran our new Hack Rules. After much work and test playing we introduced our latest set of rules CLASSICAL HACK I ALEXANDER TO MARIUS, These are an easy play yet historical set of non-tournament ancient rules. They use the same main frame as our earlier KNIGHT HACK with appropriate changes to fit classical warfare. our Buffalo group "The Jogglers" ran shorthanded but the response to our. latest publication was great. Rich and Ed would have been delighted to see the turn out. We ran a scenario battle with CLASSICAL HACK I, the battle of Magnesia. We had to turn players away as the slots were filled; to those we apologize. The sale of CLASSICAL HACK I Rules would have sold out had we directed our attention to sales rather than play. KNIGHT HACK did very well In sales too; these did sell out; probably due to their sucess at Historicon '91.

Well that's about it for convention news. I'll see you at SIMCON where we'll be HACKING away and Jogging. 

Anonymous

Dear Terry,

I enjoyed the last issue of SAGA. I take Steve Currie's point (Vol VI, No 1) about beginners organising units as historically as possible, and in fact I would also strongly encourage them to do so. The reason why I put forward suggestions for unit sizes depending on troop type was twofold.

In the first place a beginner is often so overwhelmed with the process of starting in the hobby, with uniforms, tactics and historical background to research, new rules to learn, an army to paint and so on, that the often difficult process of organisational research can prove too much for a beginner starting up in the hobby.

Secondly, for many armies information on unit size, armament and organisation is very scanty, and sometimes nonexistent. my suggestions were intended as a rule of thumb to get a person started in 7th. It is not intended as a substitute for the often enjoyable and rewarding task of research.

And shifting back in time to Volume V, No 6 issue, there are also a couple of comments I'd like to make regarding Karl Gaarsoe's DBA queries. I first played DBA under the tuition of Phil Barker, when he was running a final play test of the rules at a Society of Ancients convention a few years ago. The terrain the Phil specifically produced for the convention differed from more traditional WRG terrain in that there was a lot more terrain than the standard 3 pieces each, but each piece of terrain was such smaller than used in 6th or 7th. In fact pieces were often only the size of one of two element bases. The terrain was not asymmetrical, but could often cluster along one edge.

When moving single elements players should forget all your other rules. Forget wheeling, turning or even inclining. A single element can whizz around in any direction, follow any convoluted path the player wishes, and start and end facing in any direction the owner wishes, so long as the total move length is not exceeded. As Terry comments, not realistic, but quick and easy.

Groups (i.e. more than one element) moving together cannot incline, as Terry indicated, nor can a line of elements 'back up' by turning 180 degrees, moving back, and then turning around again. The exception is, of course, if the PIP points are paid for each individual element in the group to move as a single element, then such manoeuvres are possible.

The flank attack was an interesting example, where two elements in column were attached in the flank by a group of elements, thus:

In fact you have a choice about how you attack the column. You can, as you indicated in the diagram, attack the rearmost element and force it to spin around (but the front of the column DOES NOT get the option of turning).

You could, as an extension of that, send in another element to strike the forward spear element, and force it to spin around and form a line Inot a column!), as shown below. It is definitely not legal to turn the spear column 90 degrees and retain the column formation, as happened to Karl. 

No, a single element attacking a flank does not gain an advantage in DBA. The main use+of a single element flank attack is to break up a continuous enemy line into separate groups or elements and thus try to forced the enemy player into spending PIP points on reorganising the line!

Paul Squischierez

Dear Terry,

Neil Hammond. In the first part of his series on tactics for 7th Edition, suggests that the common table top tactic of forced marching light troops to the centerline is realistic. I don't think the evidence beers this interpretation out.

The "Light Troops Symposium" that was published in the July 1991 Slingshot gave a very different picture, one of light troops being hidden behind the main battleline or on the flanks once the battle proper began. The two periods that the symposium did not deal with directly were the Punic Wars and the Imperial Romans, but my own reading since has convinced me that they do not change the picture.

In the typical 7th Edition competition battle, light troops tend to have overwhelming importance because of the time limit that tournament conditions impose. A thick screen can prevent altogether the mass melee that to my mind is characteristic of the substantial majority of ancient battles. Hence, players show an eagerness for light troops that would be beyond the understanding of most of their ancient and medieval counterparts, who sees to have preferred maximizing their battle-winning components of legionaries, knights, or hoplites.

If we want more authentic tournament battles, we are going to have to figure out how to neutralize the present significance of light troops.

The other urgent area for attention is terrain. The preference for "neutral" terrain in competition Is a serious shortcoming if we are expected to play a set-piece battle. Must convention terrain seems better suited to the meeting engagement. It would be interesting to hear what organizers had to say about it.

Brian Lewis is a little unfair on the current NASAMW leadership in SAGA for Feb-Mar 1992, when he suggests they have behaved undemocratically. If the by-laws allow them to put the NCT wherever they want, then unless they seized power by force they are within their rights. As any ancient Greek will tell you, one of the characteristics of democracy is that the laws are written down, so all have the opportunity to know what options are open to citizens and officials. Beyond that, it's caveat suffregator. 

Jeff Hudelson

Dear Editor,

The Monterey Peninsula Wargamers held their annual Spring tournaments on 4-5 April in Marina, California. Two four-round tourneys were held. There was a 16-player NASAMW-sanctioned 15m event (SPEARS '92) and an 8-player "just for fun" 25mm tourney for Feudal/Medieval armies (JOUST '92).

SPEARS '92 was won by Alan Crandall's Indians who defeated Dave Lauerman's Sassanid Persians by the first tie-breaker (head to-head). Third place went to Morgan Conrad's Sicilian Hohenstaufens, fourth to Gregg Nail's Tibetans.

Medals were also awarded (by vote of the participants). Stuartt Meyer (who ran New Kingdom Egyptians) was awarded both the "Most Courageous General" and "Superior Sportsmanship" medals; while Dave Lauerman was voted the "Best Presented At-my" for- his Sassanids. Special notice should also be made of Joe Evans who drove close to a thousand miles to play in this tournament.

JOUST '92 was won by the Ottoman Turks of Charlie Weaver. Dale Shane): 's Medieval French finished second; while my (Jeff Nudelson) Feudal Spanish edged out Isaac Shanek's Georgians for third.

Andy Crain (who ran Later Poles) won the "Most Courageous General" medal; Charlie Weaver was awarded the "Superior Sportsmanship" prize (thus putting to rest the cannard that such prizes are consolation for finishing last); and Ernie Calvillo won the medal for- "Best Presented Army" for a beautiful collection of Song Chinese (complete with field defenses and artillery).

A note about the medals. They were not expensive (about $3.50 each), but they were a really big hit. Most players who play in a tourney know that they (realistically) have little chance of winning. They are there to face new opponents and new armies and to renew acquaintances.

But simply knowing that they didn't have to finish first to win something added an extra incentive. Also, the fact that there fellow players would be, in effect, voting on their behavior resulted in a very courteous tournament. I would encourage all tournament organizers to offer something similar.

Notice also that the award was not for "Nest Painted Army", but rather for "best Presented Army". The difference being that "presentation" takes into account everything --- the correctness of the figures, the balance of troops, the formations adopted, the style of combat, the historical "feel" -•- not just paint in.