Mail Call

The opinions and comments made in Reader's Letters are not necessarily
those of the editor or publisher. The editor requests that letters
submitted for publication in this column should be short and to the
point to avoid unneccesary abridgement. Letters sent to the editor that
are not intended for publication must be clearly marked as such.

Dear Sir, 

Congratulations on another excellent issue. I was particularly pleased
to see the detailed treatment given to "Highway to the Reich" and I hope
that you will from time to time include more of this type of longer
article, which provides a better balanced magazine as well as a (to me
at least) more satisfying article.

D.l.A. Mack (The Principle of the Thing) objects to players being
allowed to examine each other's stacks of units, yet his "suck it and
see" approach is surely just as unrealistic, for a commander is rarely
in complete ignorance as to what units are facing him. In a game on the
divisional or even regimental scale, therefore, some form of limited
intelligence (as in "Vera Cruz" perhaps) is desirable. In tactical games
Mr Mack's attitude is even less defensible, for the scale of most
tactical games is such that all units not in covering terrain are
visible over most of the map (in reality stacked units are probably
mixed up together, not neatly segregated ) .

This small point apart I thought this an excellent article. 

A. McGee

Dear Sir, 

The quality of the Phoenix continues to improve. Indeed I thought issue
no.6 rather better than the copy of S&T it accompanied. This is a
reflection on the recent nose-dive in the standard of the articles and
games in S&T over the last few issues. I hope that the Phoenix will
develop to become, among other things, a recognisable stronghold of UK
wargamers' opinion with which SPI will have to reckon. Perhaps through
your magazine caring wargamers in this country can pressure SPI into
taking a bit more trouble with their S&T games, and we would be saved
from repeat per formances of the recent Road to Richmond and October War
debacles.

Royston Paynter

Dear Sir, 

I would be interested to know if anybody has: 
(1) Played a game of Overlord (Conflict Games, a sort of ''Pirate Quad")
in which the Germans have won, or even one which lasted into August,
(2) Played a game of October War which was not decided beyond a shadow
of a doubt before the scenario is half over
(3) Exceeded my record, in the "Protecting the populus from the local
fauna'' scenario from StarSoldier (which, for those who haven't got the
game, involves a thing known as a "Dinkblog", 3 creature which can
teleport itself anywhere on the board, against which I had three
StarSoldiers) which I lost in 1.5 turns, around 10 minutes real time,
about a minute scale time, and without getting into a situation suitable
to hit my opponent!

With reference to (1) I have played five games of Overlord, which by the
way is an excellent game, despite rules written for someone with a
mental age of two and despite an extremely long set-up time, during
which the game has never progressed further than the middle of July
before the Allies won, (exited nine divisions). The funny thing is they
have got the game at my school (Collyer's) wargames club, and they have
never managed a German win either!

As to (2),1 have played four games of October War (although it only came
recently). The first was the Israeli Counter-attack scenario (16.5) in
which the Israelis had no units left by turn five. My second game,
Valley of Tears (16.2) was another "total annihilation" of the Israelis,
this time by turn seven, mainly because some fool (I wonder who?)
"waited until he could see the whites of their eyes", by which time they
had passed the killing ground. Game three, Gamala ( 16.1 ) ended by turn
eight because yours truly had only nineteen vehicles left. The last game
to date was scenario 1 of the Syrian Front Campaign which was over by
turn 10, when the Israelis had no units left on the board and only 55%
casualties --3(M3), 4(CNT), 6(M51), 3(INF); OMA:6 15HCAS:(8H).

N.B.This is after regrouping. 
Casualties: 1(M3 + INF)D-3; 1(M51) D-1. 

A.J .Holyer

To the noble editor of Phoenix

My esteemed sir: Whilst pausing in a wayside inn I perchanced to come
upon a number of your infamous journal wherein I found enscribed an
account of an expedition to 'Castle Fil'.

Certain points of this work I feel necessitate comment.

To commence, May I say that, as a lawful cleric, I abhor the attitude of
the anonymous hobbit in the party. For a creature who is himself
basically lawful I find his suggestion of raiding a cemetery disgusting.
Furthermone, his subsequent actions are totally depraved-- how could the
unpleasant little creature bear to stand around and watch his kin being
slaughtered? Perhaps it was for this sin that he is reduced to a mere
Spirit forced to give accounts of his crimes to publications such as
your own. I shall endeavour to pray for his soul.

I send my condolences to the lawful members of the party. However, I
find their association with a party containing chaotics horrifying. I
personally would not consider joining such a party even though in the
past I have made several expeditions with persons of neutral alignment.
Also do they not realise that desecration of wayside shrines constitutes
one of the 287 deadly sins? I feel that they got their just rewards!

The Elvish member of the party appears to be incredibly powerful, having
abilities far beyond those normally attributed to his kind. My good
friend Wislon, himself a 3rd level mage, assures me that it is
impossible to sleep an 8th level creature such as the chief orc. In
fact, pursuing the line of investigation, our host was good enough to
show me a volume entitled Greyhawk where-in it is stated that monsters
of 5th level and above are immune to this spell. One wonders how he
accomplished this feat.

Further reading of the script leads one to the interesting line "we
landed on level 2. We knew this because the magic-users had each gained
a spell". Having never noted this phenomenon amongst any of the Mages I
had encountered I made so bold as to ask Wislon about it. He replied
that, to the best of his knowledge, the number of spells was determined 
by the level of the Mage, not how far underground he was. Additional 
spells, he continued, were obtained by the gaining of experience and 
the subsequent raising of the magicians level - not through being stupid 
enough to walk into a transporter or fall down stairs. Having successfully 
diverted Wislon's attention from the comely serving wench by the fire I 
further questioned him as to the large number of spells cast.

He quickly scanned the offending literature. I note, he said, that in 
total 5 spells have been cast by the pair of mages in the party. Now, he 
continued, the Dragon Slayer is definitely first level as by implication, 
is the second, therefore their ability to cast spells is limited to one 
each. Where did the other spells come from? Further, he added, the levitate 
spell is of the second level, learnable only when the exhalted rank of 
Conjurer (3rd level) has been reached. How is it that they have used two 
of such spells - I have never even heard of a 'kill' spell.

Having little knowledge of magic myself I borrowed the spell book of the 
late Goodgulf, a most famous mage, and looked through the tables of spells 
therein. Strange to say I could not find a spell of any similarity therein. 
The only spell I have heard of pertaining to it is a 5th level clerical spell 
by the name of 'Finger of Death'. I was therefore unable to enlighten Wislon 
as to the nature of the 'kill' spell.

Upon finishing my perusal of the manuscript I felt great sympathy for the 
party especially over their encounter of a 12th level creature upon the second 
level and for their unhappy demise.

I shall remember them in my prayers.

I remain your humble servant. 

Rasbootin the Adept