Having spoken to a number of established players I've come to the conclusion that MeG is becoming unnecessarily complicated.
The next version of the rules should be used as an opportunity to streamline the the whole game. If not, MeG is in danger of becoming an esoteric, tournament rule set.
Do you mean the rules themselves or how they are written?
IMO the rules have not changed in their fundamentals since they were published, although there have been some clarifications and so on. I was very critical of the first versions that suffered from numerous grammatical and editorial errors but they have been addressed for the most part. I do not understand how the rules themselves are now 'becoming' complicated when they remain effectively the same as they always have been.
Alternatively, if you mean the rules 'are' overly complicated and you would like them to be simplified - that is a different matter and I would be interested to see some detail around your streamlining proposal.
As a rule set I find the combat simple and intuitive, the I use of cards for orders is likewise simple and effective. If there is one area I find complex it's the manoeuvre, it's a game where mm matter, and while I enjoy the challenge doesn't quite feel historical. I can't see even Roman legionaries manoeuvring on the battlefield with that precision.
I guess There could be some simplification for example in an evade a simple, is your distance ran plus starting distance greater than my charge then you get away but changing it more would lose a lot of its flavour
There are also rule sets out there that are much simpler such as TTS which uses a grid, so there are much simpler rules already out there, and players have a choice as to what they prefer.
Mark, I think we are on the same page. My small group has often discussed the excessive manoeuvrability and flexibility attributed to 'most' of the armies. This promotes the micrometer measurement methodology.
However, the dilemma is that if we made units maintain a more continuous battle line rather than allowing individual units to operate more or less independently, the game would become a bit of a dice-off. While this might be more historically accurate, it might also be less entertaining as a game.
So, like you said, if people want less complex games there are other options for them. I don't mean this to sound dismissive because it is a conundrum that I also struggle with. I too hate the cheesy flank charges.🤷♂️
Unfortunately there is no set of rules that will perfectly suit everyone and compromise will be necessary. I just look for one that is historically based but enjoyable to play. MeG meets those criteria for me overall.
Importantly, I also want a stable player base so I know I can collect armies safe in the knowledge I will get a return on that investment in time, money and energy. That is why I have been worried about the recent discussions on the forum that appear to show growing dissatisfaction. When a well known and popular WW2 wargames ruleset underwent a metamorphosis to appeal to a new audience, our previously strong WW2 wargaming community fragmented and I ended up selling off my WW2 stuff!
Well, it is pretty complicated and perhaps as things get clarified, it becomes clearer to players how complicated it is (hence it seems to be becoming more complicated).
e.g. skirmishers contacted by a enemy are destroyed. In the charge phase. Unless it's a grazing contact. Or the contact is with an evader, not a charger, in which case movement is blocked.
But in the movement phase, a grazing contact forces the skirmishers to move 1 BW away, using one of two methods, unless they decide to run away instead. Unless it was a second move.
However, arguably, given the detailed modelling that the game uses, it is necessarily complicated.
This is not the same as simple rules having complex consequences when you put them into practice. I think you would get "battlelines breaking up" even with streamlined rules.
Quote from: rayfredjohn on November 23, 2023, 09:44:44 PM
... I've come to the conclusion that MeG is becoming unnecessarily complicated.
Care to give any examples of changes made to the rules that have made them "unnecessarily complicated"?
Quote from: LawrenceG on November 24, 2023, 06:08:15 AM
Well, it is pretty complicated and perhaps as things get clarified, it becomes clearer to players how complicated it is (hence it seems to be becoming more complicated).
I think this is very much the case.
I also think it is not an uncommon thing with rules, especially those which have a significant competition scene.
I'm not sure that the rules are so complicated. I rarely look at the rules book these days. Usually I can agree with my opponent what happens and if we can't then at a comp tend to appeal to the umpire (apologies to Nik, RJC and everyone who umpires ... I do try to keep appeals to a minimum, honest) - and outside comps just guess at the spirit of the rules and if we still can't agree then roll a dice (or if I'm playing one of my usual opponents, Mr Stead, I just assume he is right because he usually is!).
There is a larger point which is that this is an analogue game (one where distances, angles etc can be divided up as finely as you want) which means there are effectively an infinite number of situations. Only by making a game digital (forcing it to a grid or something like that) can you limit the number of situations. Any analogue game will by definition have lots of complexities - but this only becomes apparent if there is a competition scene. Then people talk to each other and all these situations come up. All analogue rules sets have these issues but non-competition players don't notice because they are in a club only playing one or two games a week so don't see the rare situations every week (compared with a competition involving say 60 games over a weekend followed by endless discussion on a forum of the one anomalous situation). I can remember a set of Napoleonic rules used at our club where the players would arrive at a different interpretation of the same rules situation from one week to the next - apparently without being aware of any contradiction! They were quite happy with their game but this forum would have had a melt down trying to parse those rules! I suspect lots of non-competition rules sets are similarly sloppy and it is only the discipline of a tournament scene that tightens up a rule set!
Crazy, goodness sake it's just a game, thems the rules, play, it retire to bar to discuss why there are only blanks and S on my dice
Personally I'm happy with the current level of complexity of the rules I do think there is room for minor improvements.
For example do we really need shoot and charge, charge only shooting and integral shooters all representing shooting during charges?
Where I do think the game as a whole is getting more complex/could perhaps be usefully simplified is with special rules that apply to individual list or a small group of lists and some characteristics.
Recently we have the new rule on bodyguards that still allow a floating CinC and shower shooting. I like these but is it possible that too many "special rules" will put off more potential players than enthuse current ones.
A similar "it could be simplified" argument could be made to barricades and obstacles and caltrops and stakes used rarely enough that maybe the nuances are wasted?
The shield cover and shoot and spear protection is another example of characteristics that affect a few lists that have come into the game since I started. These two are also representing fighting in slightly different ways that are also represented in other ways.
Individually and all together I am happy with these but I wonder whether they are playing to a vocal minority and/or UK competition habitués? and might put off newer players or those that don't play so regularly?
Funnily enough I was just explaining the difference between Shoot and Charge and Integral Shooter to one of our club players (... and in the back of my mind I was thinking "don't mention Charge Only shooting, that will only confuse things"!). But these guys are playing more and more MeG so I'm confident that is only a phase and they will end up knowing all that without needing to look in the rule book.
Pacto was meant to be the simpler version that eased new players into MeG - and that did work for our club. So perhaps the key thing is to keep Pacto as simple as possible as an entry pathway for new players.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on November 24, 2023, 06:09:21 AM
Quote from: rayfredjohn on November 23, 2023, 09:44:44 PM
... I've come to the conclusion that MeG is becoming unnecessarily complicated.
Care to give any examples of changes made to the rules that have made them "unnecessarily complicated"?
I said MeG is becoming unnecessary complicated. That is the whole ecosystem. To be clear that's rules and lists combined. The next version of the rules will be an opportunity for the author to assess where we are.
Many on here will not worry about MeG being an esoteric tournament rule set. Maybe that is its future.
One need only take a quick page through the Rules forum to see just how esoteric and picayune the rules are becoming more and more a set where one must be familiar with the rules AND Clarries AND the latest from the forum. I agree that the rules as written are not excessively complex. When we must spend page after forum page arguing about whether side contact between Tug and enemy SuG destroys the Sug... well, matters are less than ideal IMHO.
Simon,Richard, and Nic do a fine job of responding to forum queries. May I suggest that they might be guilty of giving too much credence to 'spirit of the rules' claims instead of enforcing the letter? If the rules don't do what they are supposed to, change them. Until you do, players should play the rules as they are.
Quote from: AntiokosIII on November 29, 2023, 06:11:54 PM
Simon,Richard, and Nic do a fine job of responding to forum queries. May I suggest that they might be guilty of giving too much credence to 'spirit of the rules' claims instead of enforcing the letter? If the rules don't do what they are supposed to, change them. Until you do, players should play the rules as they are.
Amen
QuoteSimon,Richard, and Nic do a fine job of responding to forum queries. May I suggest that they might be guilty of giving too much credence to 'spirit of the rules' claims instead of enforcing the letter? If the rules don't do what they are supposed to, change them. Until you do, players should play the rules as they are.
Never forget that at least for a tournament you have a referee that has the difficult task of ruling the different cases . He may help solve problems
I agree MeG is not simple - but I wouldn't call it over-complicated. If I wanted a simple ruleset there are plenty to choose from. I have tried a few and found them unsatisfying, and wouldn't choose to play them again.
There are definitely areas in the writing of the rules that could be improved. More attention could have been paid to making clear definitions of key game terminology. Proof-reading could have been better. But any rules not written in some sort of extremely formal language are going to suffer from some amount of inherent ambiguity.
Clarifications and errata are important to try to resolve mistakes or ambiguity, although clearly too clarifications/errata many become problematic in themself.
Rules as downloadable PDFs which can be modified more more quickly may help in this regard, but of course most of us have bought printed rulebooks and don't want to be replacing those too regularly!
Quote from: ShrubMiK on December 01, 2023, 10:55:36 PM
I agree MeG is not simple - but I wouldn't call it over-complicated. If I wanted a simple ruleset there are plenty to choose from. I have tried a few and found them unsatisfying, and wouldn't choose to play them again.
There are definitely areas in the writing of the rules that could be improved. More attention could have been paid to making clear definitions of key game terminology. Proof-reading could have been better.
Well said that man!
I have always thought errata is needed in order to thwart the 'rule Nazi's" who try to ruin a game by quoting endless rules at you in order to win.
Mortem et Gloriam is one of the best competition sets created as it's tight and there at every few things to argue about. I would add though that Mortem et Gloriam is mainly designed to be as good a recreation of a historical battle as I could come up with. And then optimised for such events based on me being a comp player for 25 years now and me being lead DBM umpire for ages. So I try to perfect it for comp play with tight rules and being available to clarify intent for the umpire team. Something is early tries to get in the DBM era from Phil with no success.
Where it has a lot of players is at club and social level. I can tell that from the sales data and the many messages I get. I would say only around 15% of regular Mortem et Gloriam players attend comps at all. From messages I get it is most liked for being a really good refight set. So what is really important is to remain the friendly events group which encourages people to come along when they wouldn't normally got to a 'comp'. You can also see that from the 2700 followers we have online. Vastly more than any event and about the same as AdlG in total. And we haven't really got going in the USA until last year at Historiscon (see below).
As for complexity, if we can simplify it and still get the subtlety of the game and the variety of troop types I am all for it. My Mantra always has been Einstein's quote
"Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler". So where there is some 'complexity' hopefully it is because simpler makes the game worse as a representation.
Always open to suggestion for simplification that can be stored for the eventual version 2. FWIW I have deliberately given everyone more movement options than I believe is truly historical as it makes for a better game. But I have a different Prompted Action Tables for refights which is on the website IIRC.
In terms of growing the community the evidence I have from most places is that:
- It is Pacto promotion and demos that gain most players, mainly from 40k, Saga communities who like the 28mm figures. They are willing to paint a Pacto force. In South Africa we had 28 players and 16 of them came to us in 28mm via that. Non of them had ever played ancient wargaming before. We found that at Warfare last year as well and gained players there, and at Historicon where RJC sold a lot of copies of the rules after running demoes.
Next up is Magna demos which tend to attract old WRG 4/5/6th edition, WAB and Hail Caesar players. Again we had that at Warfare and Historical. I plan to do a 1 day 28mm Magna event. There was a great article by John Lambshead in one of the magazines about how Mortem et Gloriam and Hail Caesar were the only two rulesets that did refights well - but for very different reasons.
Maximus 15mm is targeting the FoG, AdlG etc. which once you have taken a big chunk is then pretty sticky and held together by certain big clubs that are owned by a set due to a leading person - so RWG is always the home of FoG as Terry and I were there during in its development, and AdlG is held strong by Central London and Tim, and Wychbold Warriors would never do anything but Mortem et Gloriam, even if I wasn't there anymore. Demos at other clubs tend to do rather well - as we found in Derby, Guildford, Warrington. So if anything go and find a club not too far away and pay it a few visits to demo games. We are going to October Club in Birmigham and Shrewsbury later this year.
Total War Rome is my main focus for gaining players longer term as it introduces the Mortem et Gloriam dice to 10,000s of players. A full 4000 people will have them int heir hands in October. In one go that is more than the total Mortem et Gloriam sets sold since 2016. If you check out the BattlePlay expansion it is one stop from Pacto.
I also have a few surprises up my sleeve for later this spring as promotion of the game. I am holding back because PSC messed up and ran out of the dice! >:( :o so I have had to do an emergency order and air ship them from China at a cost of 1000 quid!! Once we have those in stock in March and Richard B has the CCC store and partners set up well, we can then spend some money to give it a push. USA, Germany, Italy and Spain all open for a proper push with the right availability to physical goods (which has been an issue all through the PSC era). The challenge has never been the rules but the need for the dice and cards, and getting hold of them.
Onwards and upwards
Si
Interesting points but to say MEG is not a tournament set of rules is an odd comment. I assume you mean statistically speaking? Best tournament set of Ancients rules I have played. But then I only play MAXIMUS, which is relevent I guess. I bet no more that 10-15% of Warhammer players do tournaments, but that doesnt mean it isnt also a tournament set does it?
I remember a couple of editions ago when GW abandoned tournament players and went for 'sales'. That back fired badly and now the 'data slate' amendments they produce each quarter are written BY a top tournament player with tournament players in mind as well as the casual gamer. Tournament results are used to create amendments that apply to both they and casual gamers to keep the game fresh. The current 10th edition HAS been simplified, but not enough to dumb the game down.
If the rules were so dumbed down and simplified to increase sales, it would be a big risk and might certainly put many tourney players off. Thats what GW thought and that didnt go too well.
Obviously PACTO is an entirely different game - on whcih I have no interest in personally, but am happy to help promote. That indeed will be an 'in' for many players of other systems and pushing it is a great idea. MAGNA is another entirely different game to MAXIMUS. The three versions of the game is one of the things that makes MEG so good.
I think there is a bit too much 'tinkering' with the rules and lists IMHO. I would leave them alone for a while and get on with pushing each version individually.