I find in several letters, recurring each issue, that readers are interested in rules for this or that "period using the roster system." Also suggested are "board game versions of."

Hopefully my thoughts turned to the idea of disposing of these queries in brief replies to the letters, but interest is running constant, so a more thorough treatment may be in order.

First, let's examine the history of the concept. Most Immediately Joe Moreschauser's "War Games in Miniature" springs to mind. From the book, and from letters we exchanged at the time I purchased it, the concept seems to have had various purposes. Mainly it stemmed from the use of figures mounted on bases. This also had its causes. Apparently Joe was using running Zulus in a 54mm wargame based on floor tiles on constant size, e.g. 6"x6". All the figures on one tile were meleed against enemy figures on the adjoining tile. Unfortunately a WM Britain's running Zulu takes more floor space than a standing Somerset Light Infantryman, and, as is so often the case, necessity is the mother of invention. To equalize things, Joe hit upon the use of bases of standard size containing a standard number of troops, whatever the position. Casualties were then removed by base, and the base, in effect, took the place of the military figure (or toy soldier, if you will,) as the tactical unit of the game.

The disadvantage, of course, was that the removal of a whole base just didn't look right to some people, and Joe came up with the idea of using a unit "roster" against which casualties were marked off when the unit received fire or melee damage. No slouch, it soon occurred to Joe that this led to other intriguing possibilities:

a. The figures could be arranged in perfect order and would not fall down.

b. With the roster system the number of hits a unit could take and the number of shots it could fire need bear no resemblance to the number of figures on the stand.

C. If the enemy could not see your roster sheet he could not tell how many men remained in a unit, leading to a concealment factor.

But let me digress. Meaning no discredit to Joe Moreschauser, the concept goes back at least to the staff Kriegspiels of the 19th Century when old Von Moltke was president of the German Empire Wargame Club, or whatever they called it. Wooden blocks scaled to the size of battalions, batteries, and squadrons were manuevered on gridded maps. When they came into combat, the units suffered incremental casualties on paper. When a unit of company size suffered 60% casualties, it was removed as inoperable. The records kept against the engaged counters were, by our usage here, "rosters."

Avalon Hill Games, in the early years, were likewise plagued by consumer complaints. "What is all this?" people would write in, "my division attacks and presto--it disappears. My opponent attacks, and is driven back two squares--though I can't tell why because I haven't hurt a hair on his pointy little head!"

Steps have been taken to provide, in AH games, for intermediate casualties. Now, I suppose, the complaints are that board games are too complicated--but I's only guessing, not being privy to the AHG correspondence files.

Naval wargames have long utilized what amounts to a roster system. In the Fletcher Pratt game, as an example, each ship has a value based on armor, armament, speed, and the like. Hits from various types of ordinance have a differing effect according to range. When hits are made, the ship value is reduced accordingly. Bismark, of course, does the whole thing more simply. Each ship has a factor up to 10 for Hull Hits, and so much for superstructure hits. This is kept track of by sheets with boxes for the number of allowed hits. Once the maximum number of hull hits is reached, down she goes.

Keep this in mind: "Roster System" means that each counter, toy soldier, group of same, ship model, or whatever, involved in the game has an equivalent table of combat values recorded on paper, computer files, or whatever. When damage is done for whatever reason the effect is marked off on the "roster." Instead of knocking over the model, or removing the counter, or getting the thing down on the floor and smashing it with a ball pen hammer, the model, counter, or whatever appears just as it did before-but the roster, and thus the combat value, is either reduced or endangered.

So when people write in and ask "do you know of a set of rules for (pick a period-any period) using the roster system," the answer is usually "almost any set of rules can be adapted to the roster." What you need is a piece of paper.

Only one thing holds me back. The bases, counters, or whatever of a tactical game must be planned to allow for the use of all formations legal to the particular arm in the game. This can be alleviated by "declaring" formations, but it becomes complicated. However, if the base represents a formed company in line, and you wish to represent a battallion in open order, separation of the bases of that battalion to occupy the wider frontage of skirmishers will do. Likewise, in column of route, an interval of specified size may be required for road movement, with the bases strung out down the road.

One of the great advantages to the table topper is that the Roster allows troops to be permanently or semi-permanently fastened to the base without losing the ability to register casualties below the base level.

Now, about that other thing--board games converted from table top games. As a long time table-topper (and before that it was hands and knees on the basement floor) and much addicted to the pageantry of the game, I hate to admit this, but once the troops are stuck on bases, you've almost done it.

Take Henry Bodenstedt's "Graveyard St.Privat." You see the map? Draw it off on a large sheet of cardboard, cloth, or paper. You have a list of unit counters? (if not, back issues are available.) Using two different colors of cardboard cut out the required number of counters and mark them for cavalry, infantry, artillery, artillery train, heavy artillery, machineguns, and command. Also cut out some blank counters for French concealment factors in the town. Keep a roster for this by unit. What you have, of course, is a simple and highly playable board game.

"Aha" some of you boardgame addicts are asking, "if that's the case, why do you guys spend so much time and money on the toy soldiers?"

"Military Miniatures," we reply (we can call 'em toy soldiers, because we're their friends--but you guys should keep a civil tongue in your heads.") The answer is complicated, however, why is it that you fellows use a unit marker identified as "I Corps" or "15th Panzer Division" when all it is, of course, is a rectangular tiddly wink! Why do Avalon-Hill, Gamescience, etc. go to all of that trouble to establish an identity for the darn things when all that counts is that it moves X and has a point value of X? Why all those scaled down deck plans on all the Jutland counters? You see, what you have there is a toy battleship--albeit a rather poor one. A lot of it boils down to how much you want to decorate the counter--or how expensive and colorful a chess set you are looking for doesn't it?