September is a busy month for battle anniversaries in Yorkshire not least in 1066.
On the 20th the Vikings of King Harald defeated the Saxons of Earls Edwin and Morcar at Germany Beck in what is now Fulford. There are not many references to this battle – given that two climatic battles followed, its understandable.
The battle was according to records fought near where the beck joins a sharp turn in the river Ouse.
Crucially the defeated Saxons made good their escape as a rising tide flooded the beck. This meant they could fight another day.
There is a tapestry of the Fulford battle displayed at various locations over the years since it was made in 2012 after ten years effort!
On the 25th September the Saxons under King Harold of England defeated Harald and the Viking host at Stamford Bridge.
It was the end of the Scandinavian Viking threat after hundreds of years of invasion.
A tapestry of the Stamford Bridge battle can be seen in the old railway station at Stamford Bridge.
It was another Viking Scion – the Norsemen who took land in the Carolingian Empire and called it Normandy – who a few generations later then defeated the English in turn at Hastings.
It can be argued that without Fulford and Stamford Bridge there would have been no Hastings and maybe a different war between Harold and William might have played out.
So maybe instead of waiting for yet another Norman invasion (the bayeaux tapestry is en route to the UK) you could visit these other tapestries when they are on show instead or as well as.
People remember William for what followed yet Harold had marched 500 miles with his household troops and won a great victory putting together two separate regional armies before arriving at Hastings: William fought an outstanding adversary.
Back in 2020 I put together some shield wall armies and had some fun trying out various rules.
Which rules are best for mid 19th century warfare. Of course it helps to know which continent your on because apparently the North America Civil Wars were nothing like those happening in Europe…..
My current preoccupations are with the Italian Wars of Unification that, depending on your viewpoint, ran from 1820-1871 or 1848-1870 or even just 1859-1861!
Whichever timeline you choose the events threw up numerous conflicts across the Italian peninsula.
These last three were considered here and here for my Kloster Arens Encounter
I guess I had settled on the Neil Thomas set with Mike Smith’s Table Top Battles offering a solution for larger battles generated by my mythical campaigns.
The thing is I had not actually tested Piquet for this period so that was still an unknown. And so was A Gentlemans War for that matter.
And then at Hammerhead 2022 I played Fire and Fury. It reminded me that this ruleset had caught my eye the odd decade ago (!) only to fade away.
I enjoyed the participation game and to cut a long story short, tracked down a 1990 1st Edition courtesy of Dave Ryan at Caliver Books. It included some photocopy extracts of post publication comments which suggested a lot of improvements! There were a lot of complaints at the time it would seem. Nice touch from Dave Ryan to include these contemporary articles with this ruleset.
With so much negative noise why bother with them though? Well they have continued to be published. And it seems they have been morphed into other era’s. My Hammerhead participation game was for the Renaissance: Perhaps this endurance shows the core mechanics work for lots of gamers.
I thought, just maybe an ACW (American Civil War) ruleset might suit my 19th century European wars in Italy after all.
The Italian Wars of Unification fit between the Crimean Wars and the Franco Prussian War while they also bracket the American Civil Wars.
Next up will be some simple tests of Fire & Fury to start with.
*In 2020 I was all Anglo Saxon and shieldwalls and tested a few rulesets to see which might work for me.
the royalists finally get a really good round of hits in
My latest Shieldwall foray is with Neil Thomas again. His One Hour Wargames (OHW) have become a mainstay of my gaming. The rules come in what I would call large paperback size. And the book is a paperback as if to emphasise its everyday style.
For this latest shieldwall face off I used one hour wargames (OHW) by Neil Thomas. I skipped the rules on random army mixes to be used with the scenarios. I used scenario 1 and ignored the time limit of 15 turns. The royalists on the left have a mounted leader unit for show purposes only. The rebels leader is shown on foot to the right.
OHW comprises 9 rulesets from ancients to world war 2. The rules are a “light touch” and the focus is on “scenarios”. His random force selector gives you 6 different unit mixes for armies of 6 units. Coupled with the 30 scenarios thats almost 180 combinations. I say almost, some scenarios limit the forces to 3 or 4 units. Even so its over 100 scenarios to play out. Excellent value in my book.
I used the Dark Age ruleset where you get infantry, warband, skirmishers and cavalry.
My two forces were 5 infantry units plus a skirmisher unit. In this battle the skirmishers faced each other at the royalist left flank and rebels right flank.
The rules cover just 2 sides or about one page of A4 and basically comprise simple movement, shooting and combat. Elimination of units involves chipping away at 15 points of value which covers all defensive strength, morale, leadership variables etc. Power to inflict damage remains constant as well. So it is the eliminiation of a unit that gives a player advantage. This in some way masks weakness and adds to the uncertainty and fog of war.
Before we do the battle report there is a small matter of the narrative.
Narrative
The Kings or Royal forces led by Earl Mathedoi had finally won a significant victory over Thegn Pyrlig while the rebel leader Earl Toki was away raising more of the land in rebellion – or rather recruiting disaffected Mercians to the cause.
The Kings Earl pursued the defeated Thegn, his now weakened but battle hardened infantry ready to fight. His cavalry had evaporated in previous battles and failed to find him. He believed another battle would finish the Thegn off.
And then his force suddenly collided with the returning Rebel Leader Earl Toki. Earl Toki had had little success with the Mercians concerning a mass rebellion although his force now boasted some Mercian reinforcements. Crucially he had not found his Thegn Pyrlig or the bulk of his army.
The two forces drew up and comprising infantry formed two shield walls on some open ground. The few skirmishers would fight each other on one flank as the shieldwalls slowly moved towards each other everyone jostling and making ready to receive or inflict blows.
Game Report
The photos show rebels at the bottom of the picture and royalists at the top.
The royalist skirmishers failed to inflict any damage in the opening moves as they stood back to fire (you either shoot or move in these rules)Next turn the rebel forces engage the royalist line while their own skirmishers also fail to hit the markBattle is joined with yellow dice showing the attacking rebels hits inflicted. The white dice against the royalists show accumulated hitsThe turn now moves to the royalists – the peter pig pink die denoting the player turn in a ruleset that is simply IgoUgo and given all the troops look the same it can get confusing.The royalist skirmishers inflict some serious damage (a six -2) on their opponentsThe royalists begin to wear down the rebel shieldwall. Each unit has a value of 15 – the number of hits that can be received before a unit is destroyed – small yellow dice show rebel lossesIn their turn the rebel skirmishers score a SIX as well which reduced to 4 is a good start for themIn their turn the royalist skirmishers score 5 which is reduced to 3 The royalists turn sees them inflict more damage – the large yellow dice show the “halved” infantry hits because shieldwalls are in play. The losses per unit would be rapid without the shieldwall benefit. the white dice show the rebels hits on the royalist shieldwall infantry so farNow the rebels can hit back – already some rebel units have suffered 5 hits earning a yellow ringThe rebels score well in this round although all these scores have to be halved for the benefit of the royalist shieldwall – fractions are rounded up.it is the royalists turn – they to are seeing losses increase.the skirmishers are fighting their own battle and it is evenly matchedin the centre the rebels are accumulating hitsthe rebels score well again and pile on the pressure on their right flanktwo royalist units have now acquired red rings denoting ten hits or in the case of the left most unit in the royalist line – elevenThe royalists now inflict some heavy damage on the rebels shieldwall. All units are the same quality etc so it is all about dice throws……..the first rebel unit to get ten hits is in its centreagain the rebels hammer the royalist left flankthe royalists finally get a really good round of hits inThe last round of fighting saw the royalists drive all the rebel units into the red. And now the rebels dice throws go low!Yet the rebels have the advantage as not only have the royalist skirmishers lost their fight, so to has that weakened left flank shieldwall unit – exceeding 15 hits and therefore being destroyedso at this crucial point the royalists have lost units but the rebels are weak everywhereas the royalist skirmishers creep away in the top right of the picture, the rebel right wing hit the royalist flank while the rebel left flnk unit has been destoryedthe weak left flank units of the royalist line collapse as their flank has been turned. Typically most rulesets would call it a day at this point with the royalists down 50% to just 3 units while the rebels have 5 units in play. now the royalists wake up and throw their dice high – although not literally! Both left flank rebel units melt away The rebel skirmishers wander round the battle field to little effecthaving destroyed each others left flanks the victorious right flanks wheel onto each other and resume the fight with the royalists on the left and the rebels on the right.The new royalist left flank unit is destroyedthings are spinning – literally, as the right flanks remain in the ascendancy again!the rebels have the attack thoughthe rebels attack again with their skirmishers still wandering aimlessly aroundbut the royalists hold on – just. The advantage is now with the royalists and they throw wellthe rebel centre unit is destoryedfinally the skirmishers join the fray and help destroy a royalist shieldwalltipped over the edge by the skirmishers another royalist infantry unit fallsthe dance is complete as the remaining royalist shieldwall drives into the unfortunate skirmisher unit. with no shieldwall all 4 hits land pushing the skirmishers to 15 and their final demise.the final battle between the remaining shieldwalls beginsThe royalists nearest to us now, inflict maximum damage but the rebels holdthe rebel response is too weak thoughthe royalists throw high again and this time its the end for the rebels as they all stream from the field.The rebels flee while the exhausted royalists simply hold what they have with no appetite for pursuit
Earl Mathedoi had defeated two rebel armies in quick succession. Importantly he had defeated Earl Toki whose first taste of defeat almost certainly meant the end of his rebellious actions.
Earl Mathedoi returned to the King to report the good news.
Earl Toki now met Thegn Pyrlig and discovered his main forces had already been defeated in his absence. The Mercians had departed having no desire to be associated with a defeated rebel and especially one lacking plunder.
Most of the rebels just drifted away and this included Thegn Pyrlig.
Earl Toki considered his options. It looked like he would have to go to the King and grovel for forgiveness. After all the King knew Earl Toki was always a useful warrior to have on his side, surely?
Not content with adding Table Top Battles to the test mix I have now decided to test my shieldwalls under the very quick ruleset written by Neil Thomas. “One Hour Wargames” (OHW or 1HW) does what it says – gives you a game in under an hour.
So my next posting will cover what happened when Earl Mathedoi caught up with Thegn Pyrlig.
Nobles – Dark Age Infantry – medium armour, Elite between 1-3 units
Peasants – Dark Age Infantry – light armour, Average between 4-6 units
Archers – Light Infantry (bow) – light armour, Levy between 0-1 units
Special rules
Shieldwall can be adopted by both Nobles and Peasants. This formation imposes movement limits while providing enhanced saving rolls equivalent to the best you can get.
Integral Archers gives extra firepower to a unit just in the first turn of combat
Cavalry – one unit of nobles can be reclassed as
Cavalry – Heavy Cavalry – light armour, Elite
The warband option only applies to armies before 600AD and is mandatory before that date. I was interested in the shieldwall so my armies were post 600AD and in fact more like 900AD, what’s a few hundred years in dark age time………..
The Gloom of morning catches the scene – Rebels in the foreground with the Kings men approaching in the distance
I opted for two identical armies conveniently named Wessex 1 (Kings Earl) and Wessex 2 (Rebel Earl). Nothing like some internal dissention.
The 8-unit armies were both the same.
2 units of Nobles
4 units of Peasants
Shieldwall capability applied to the above 6 units
1 unit of Archers
1 unit of Cavalry
I had intended to give the rebels the integral archery option but forgot to do that in the actual game. So much for testing!
The core of each army were peasants and noble units forming shieldwall
The six infantry units squared up against each other while the light infantry supported the right wing in each case with the Cavalry withdrawn on the left.
The Rebel Earl stood with his men in the ShieldwallThese Kings men look like interlopers both mounted and on foot, hmmmmm
The nobles were in the centre of each line and both lines matched each other so as the battle got underway it was noble against noble and peasant against peasant. I did not pitch each leader’s unit against each other though. Remember that the leader confers no extra benefit or disadvantage if lost.
At the centre of both lines the leaders fought adjacent to each other, something which would affect the battle outcome in an unexpected way.
The Kings men expected to make short work of these insolent rebels.
The sun began to shine although the glare did not seem to affect the rebels on the left flank
In the early stages, it was the rebels who made rapid gains on both flanks racking up hits before everything hit a stalemate or rather a slower rate of hits, now being equally inflicted.
The Kings men of the left flank take an early barrage of hits omniously.On the rebel left the Kings men were just taking a bit more punishment than they handed out. Maybe these rebels were no pushover after all
Finally, the left flank peasant unit of the Kings army fled the field after some hard fighting. And even the Cavalry behind them were no support to keep them in line.
The left flank peasant shieldwall dark age infantry reduced to a yellow ring indicating two bases left had already incurred 3 of the 4 available hits left to them on this ring. Three hits (yellow dice) were incurred while no saving throws made the cut (orange, 3,1,2 versus required 6) so with one base lost a nasty twist in AMW rules is triggered – throw for morale due to a base loss. Here the Kings men needed 4-6 and threw a measly 2. Already down to one base that went as well. The left wing of the Kings men leave the field in full view of the cavalry reserveThe Kings men cavalry reserve approaches the shieldwall which was now reforming. As they came up to the line the levy archers poured a few arrows into the hapless cavalry
These Kings horsemen rode into the fray. They crashed into the victorious rebel peasant unit who held them. The battle now continued until the rebels centre crumpled and a noble unit turned tail. The triumphant Kings Army Leader drove forward into the gap and turned onto the Rebel Leaders flank to deliver the killer blow. However, the rebel cavalry charged into the centre and took the Kings Noble Leader unit in the rear.
A rebel nobles unit on a yellow ring and with 2 hits remaining repeats the same trick of losing a base to combat (yellow 4,6 versus orange saving throws of 1,2) and then their remaining base to morale (green 2 when a 3-6 would have done the job)The rebel nobles unit retires leaving the Kings men with the opportunity to exploit the collapse of the rebel centre.The rebel leader and the right flank are dangerously weak with 2 red rings and one yellowthe kings men leader attacks the rebel leader while the rebel cavalry reserve come to the rescue of their leaderNow the tables are turned as the Kingsmen leader unit is caught in the rear by the Rebel cavalry
Meanwhile the Kings own cavalry unit gave up its fight with the rebel peasants and left the field. And in the centre the Kings Leading Nobles also succumbed, failing to destroy the Rebel nobles and unable to deal with the Rebel Cavalry attacking their rear.
On the Kings men left flank their own cavalry have had enough and retireThe kingsmen leader unit routs and the adjacent peasant shieldwall joins them.
A Kings Army peasant unit also abandoned the fight at this point.
Th Kings Army had now been reduced to just 1 noble unit, 1 peasant unit and 1 unit of archers. All three of these units were quickly attacked by the Rebels. The result was no longer in doubt. And the first to flee were the nobles!
The remaining Kings men shieldwall is now outflanked while the archers on the right flank can do little but watch their army disperse and look to their own survival.The end of resistance by the Kings men as the last noble unit abandons the field
With just two Kings Army units remaining the Rebels had the field and could celebrate a great victory.
The Kings Army had melted away and now the Rebels could enjoy their freedom for a while.
in this game I used rings and dice. You could use coloured dice to achieve the same result although I think the combination is quite neat.The battle turned on situations where the combat losses forced a morale test which when you fail it can be devastating – here a unit goes from blue (4 bases) through green (3 bases) and onto yellow (2 bases). Yes I know its really pale blue in the photo but the middle ring looks green in real life – ok thats sea green!
The casualty method I adopted here was to show nothing where a unit had all 4 bases intact with no losses. When the first hits were incurred the unit acquired a dark blue ring and a die showing hits received. A pale blue/green ring showed a unit was now on three bases. No die meant all 4 hits were intact. More casualties took units through yellow rings for just two bases remaining before the last remaining base was indicated by a red ring. You could use coloured dice of course.
The game uses saving throws which is something of a regression for some rule writers. In a way you get no more dice rounds than DBA – one for one against. What you do get more of is the number of die thrown for a unit in a fight. That’s the buckets of dice syndrome. That means you throw 4 dice at full strength instead of always just one in DBA per base/unit. On the upside even DBA has the dreaded list of “plus or minus factors” and AMW only uses this approach in the optional rules per army which add some flavour.
With no push backs the line remains static or rather you don’t see the push and shove and gradual break down of the line: It is not played out physically by the gamer, so you have to imagine it happening. This is a greater abstraction than DBA where the push back is required to be seen and of course gives combat benefits being integral to the next or adjacent base combat. DBA push back also alerts both players to outcomes allowing helicopter management: Appropriate for tournament play maybe. Of course, “transparency” is a competition issue and “imagination” has no place in tournament play.
During the slogging match the rebels were losing and at times it looked like the king’s men would make the decisive shieldwall breakthroughs. In fact, it was the Cavalry that made the difference. The king’s cavalry filled a gap in the line but were then quickly seen off by the shield wall peasants. The rebel cavalry was far more useful when the kings leading nobles exposed their rear in attacking the rebel leaders.
The moves I made were all logical – in the heat of battle why would you not descend on your enemy leader’s rear to finish him off and Leaders wheeling to expose a flank or rear – so what – those cavalry in the distance might not move our way……but they did.
For both armies I sent in the cavalry in response to an adverse situation that would be seen by the cavalry sat patiently to the nearby.
The combats were close such that on another day it might be the rebels fleeing from the field.
History Note: If you accept that Anglo-Saxons rode to war, which I do, then the army list is fine. The two situations in the battle (allowed under the rules) suggest why their use may have been more restricted and why the rules could be amended.
The Kings Cavalry charged a Shieldwall that had just defeated another Shieldwall. If we allow for the defeated men to drift away the cavalry will have been faced with a tired but formed body of men experiencing euphoria and relief. It is possible to conceive that the cavalry leader believed they were so tired that he could drive them off. In the event the Shieldwall reformed and defeated the cavalry. That seems reasonable as well.
In the other situation the cavalry reserve could see their own centre begin to collapse and after they own men had streamed away, they could see the “backs” of enemy troops. That assumes they could tell the difference at a distance. It seems reasonable to make that assumption because their own men had just left a gap in the Shieldwall line. With the backs of the enemy in sight why not charge into the fray.
In both cases it is about the morale and the decision to move rather than the outcome of the subsequent fight. And AMW allows you freedom to move. No pips, no movement decisions testing and no morale tests prior to moving.
AMW Rules note
On the face of just one playtest the temptation is to put in some control. AMW is attractive because it lacks the rule quantity of other sets. Restricting decisions to move or rather introducing wide ranging controls feels wrong here. Can we solve this problem another way? I think so and the answer lies in AMW having optional rules.
The Anglo-Saxon cavalry was an optional rule itself.
AMW House Rule No1
Anglo-Saxon Cavalry are permitted in battle and may advance into combat areas. They may charge into contact. After one turn of fighting they withdraw one full move unless they have at least one more base advantage than the unit they attacked.
So, the thinking here is that unless they make some rapid impact, turning the fight in their favour, they will use their mobility to withdraw before being destroyed.
This is not such a punishing rule as it seems. The withdrawn cavalry remains a threat and effectively may pin the opposition or at least make them think twice about their next moves. And they remain one of the three units required by the whole army to stay in the fight.
I think this rule reflects the likelihood of Anglo-Saxon cavalry being opportunists and pursuers in battles where the victory tide has turned one way or another.
Summary
The game was enjoyable and the result fine. I must admit allowing either army to fight with 3 units always looks a bit odd. Yet if you think in terms of abstraction – there are other men on the field all retiring or surrendering and not modelled. The few units left on the field show where the remaining core of resistance still exists. I can live with that.
One final thought is that shieldwalls are strong. How strong are they against a concerted cavalry attack though?
In my next post I will explore the classic dark ages infantry versus cavalry conflict.
So having had a good start to the year painting wise, by August I had enough units to do some gaming. My wargaming has always been predominantly “solo”, so road testing rules on my own is natural for me.
Impetus elements of Anglo Saxons, Carolingians and Normans ready to do battle
I should also say that from my earliest wargaming days I have tinkered with rules.
It is a quirk of fate that the first wargames book I read on rules came from my local public library (remember them?). So being a child you take what you can or rather see. So what did my local library have in the adult section? Well a single Donald Featherstone book. And his book was called “Advanced Wargames”. It was a book about wargames and the advanced bit meant nothing to me.
years after my public library discovery I bought my own copy of this book. It actually contains material that has been “invented and popularised” decades later such as grid gaming
So armed with Advanced Wargames I started rule based wargaming and of course met a big problem. Advanced Wargames is a set of chapters dealing with “aspects” of wargaming. Drawing on multiple sources and authors the book covers most areas of rulesets yet they are not joined up to provide a single useable ruleset.
The assumption was that you had a wargames ruleset/s already and some prior knowledge of the whole idea of rules based wargaming. Then you would cherry pick additions and improvements from the book.
I think this is the origin of my “tinkering” with wargames rules. Give me a set of rules and I will invariably add in some “house rules”.
So back to my road test of the rulesets of Neil Thomas and Daniel Mersey.
I have posted previously about my reluctance to move from seriously thought out but quick DBA into the very simple world of AMW. Yet this ruleset is very enjoyable and is more subtle than you might think.
In Ancient & Medieval Wargaming (AMW) by Neil Thomas there are four period rulesets
Biblical Wargaming 3000BC – 500BC
Classical Wargaming 500BC – 300AD
Dark Age Wargaming 300AD -1100AD
Medieval Wargaming 1100AD – 1485AD
My choice here was obvious – Dark Age Wargaming.
I used his rules without house rule changes on this occasion. Well with one exception.
I use Impetus sized elements having abandoned DBA with its restrictions on depth. And I had settled on 1/72 20-25mm figures on 80 mm wide bases which Impetus assumed would be for 15mm although the rules clearly gave you the option for 1/72 basing.
In fact Impetus rules whole approach to basing was so refreshing when I encountered them. And for me they have set the tone for most of the last decade.
I think they were in the vanguard of “BW” measurement or base width’s. This simple decision meant the end of the need to “rebase” figures when switching between rulesets. Of course if you only have one ruleset it is never an issue.
I have almost as many rulesets as guides to painting figures if not more……..dozens.
AMW assumes you have DBA based figures so uses 4 40mmx20mm bases giving you an 80mm x 40mm element and 8 of these make an AMW army.
In effect you need 32 dba bases which is not so good if you have 12 unit dba armies: And most of my thinking had been on these compact DBA army lines.
table size and figure basing all go together for me. I fixed my maximum table size at 6’x4′ imperial and 1.8m x 1.2m metric. 3 collapsible picnic tables from lidl are the foundationsurface finish is 3 x 20mm thick mdf 4’x2′ (1.2m x 0.6m) boards to minimise warping covered with felt in this case
Then I read an article in the Lone Warrior magazine of the Solo Wargamers Association. There the writer suggested a cheap way to build armies was just use the 40mm x 20mm bases as single elements and/or reduce figure count to just say 1 for light troops, 2 for medium and 3 for heavy troops. Well it was something like that because it was the principle that made the difference to me. It broke me fully away from DBA “figures per base rules” and Impetus gave me the solution of 1/72 figures which I prefer – yet now on a smaller 15mm scale base size I also prefer.
The net result is I use 80mm wide bases and actually a generous 60mm depth for all units. This allows the impetus suggested “diorama” approach, better showing individual figures you have carefully painted rather than their being very squashed together under DBA.
You sacrifice ground scale though. I guess in this I have followed favourably the increased “abstraction” approach on ruleset design. Abandoning figure removal for losses in the 1990’s? was the start of this “abstraction” and for some the descent fully into gaming and away from any simulation. I love history yet I love gaming so the compromise matters.
Neither AMW nor Dux Bellorum require explicit command bases but I like them so here is one – from my much delayed “Normans in the South” project – none other than Tancred d’Hauteville looking at the shield design.
Using single base elements meant that required base removal in AMW rules was not now possible. The fix here was simply to use two dice. The first was used to show the 4 “virtual” bases while the second showed the 4 points value each virtual base could sustain before being knocked out and removed from play. I have also used three dice in other games (18 so showing 6+6+4 at the start). But the rules in AMW use base counts to indicate available attack dice. Unless you like mental arithmetic, showing the two aspects gives a simple visual indicator.
A few years later Neil Thomas used this “one number” technique to good effect in his fastplay “One Hour Wargames” (OHW) rules where units are a single base elements with a value of 16 which equates to all the elements morale/resistance/casualty value and overall strength in one number.
With AMW you need not fear flank issues so the shieldwall has gaps between each element/unit ! you can of course place units in base to base contact – i was reflecting the AMW book diagrams!
So I played two games with AMW. The first was essentially two shield walls crashing together and the second was a cavalry led force attacking a shieldwall.
The mighty Norman/Carolingian or Franks in AMW speak start their assault on the Anglo Saxons shieldwall. AMW give suggested army set ups although you still have plenty of choice in the small army lists in the text
The third ruleset test game was another shieldwall versus shieldwall this time using Dux Bellorum.
atmospheric artwork throughout the Osprey book makes its use feel positively different to the text heavy AMW where a central batch of irrelevant but professional model armies fails to add any real value. The AMW font is bigger so the text is much easier to refer to in the heat of battle though!
These rules are aimed at a narrower period AD367-793 and with a nod to fantasy gaming called “Arthurian Wargaming Rules”. These rules use the “BW” concept, being published in 2012, 5 long years after AMW.
a solid pair of shieldwalls square up for Dux Bellorum. The dice are colour coded for the unit grades such as “nobles”.
Again there were no tweaks for once. Indeed in both cases as I fought shieldwall battles a side benefit was to better understand the design of these two rulesets. Because shieldwalls in both rulesets result in quite a static and very balanced game you can see the effect of a limited number of the author’s variables in action.
Here is an Anglo Saxon Command with to its front my version of a shieldwall in 1/72 Strelets plastics on an Impetus 15mm scale 80mm wide element base.
In my next blog I will consider what happened in each game.
the ring and dice combination solved my AMW rule problem when using only base instead of 4.
The Wargaming Erratic 
