The new terrain table introduces the following changes:
a. Rough going has been simplified into one terrain type, replacing rocky ground, brush, ploughed fields, tall crops and boundaried fields.
b. Dead ground/gully/gorge. Replaces the existing gully and wadi terrain types. These are good/rough and difficult going versions that each affect visibility at their edges to 2BW.
c. Fort. Replaces town. Provides both cover and with the boundary treated as barricades. Limited to a single piece that may be chosen only by the defender but must be touching the defender's rear table edge and may not be placed in the central terrain zone.
d. Settlements. Replaces village, orchard and vineyards. In Standard and Coastal territory types then may be selected by both players. In other territory types, limited to a single piece selected by the defender. Counts as cover when within or shooting through. Restricts visibility of infantry to 4BW.
e. Forest. Only skirmishing infantry may shoot from within a forest. Counts as cover.
f. Coastal dunes. Difficult terrain, reducing visibility to 2BW. No dice roll for sector. Must be placed touching a deep water flank specified as a sea (invader specifies). Player may still make a roll to move, still touching the sea, or remove the feature as normal.
The aim is to provide some interesting choices with terrain selection.
Éléphants and camels were immune to a certain number of terrain.
I noted it was still the case for camels.
What about elephant?
They have been removed as a simplification. Where elephants treated types of rough as good the result of the change is to slow elephants by 1 BW as they are still not affected by rough. For the ones that were difficult treated as rough these types have changed and we feel that they should not be exceptions any more (so again a bit of simplification).
Seriously these guys are slowed by Orchards or Vineyards???
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/t52xufcLTAw
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/XOy6eoSlOfQ
Rough going has been simplified into one terrain type, replacing rocky ground, brush, ploughed fields, tall crops and boundaried fields.
This removes some interesting terrain choices, each of which has advantages and disadvantages, that army generals take into consideration, for deploying their troops
Hardly " providing some interesting choices with terrain selection."
Fort. Replaces town. Provides both cover and with the boundary treated as barricades. Limited to a single piece that may be chosen only by the defender but must be touching the defender's rear table edge and may not be placed in the central terrain zone.
This is completly counter intuitive, if you have a "Fort" you dont automatically stick it out on your flank??? touching the rear edge has some merit if you are a defender, and if your a commader you would stick your camp in there!!
Settlements. Replaces village, orchard and vineyards. In Standard and Coastal territory types then may be selected by both players. In other territory types, limited to a single piece selected by the defender. Counts as cover when within or shooting through. Restricts visibility of infantry to 4BW.
Again see my previous comment reference Elephants but equally doesnt seem like "The aim is to provide some interesting choices with terrain selection."
Simplification is not a useful target in isolation, simplifying technically complexity may be ie mixed flank and frontal attacks, but simplification for its own sake just brings mediocracy, eventually you can reduce the game to 1x 6 sided dice per tug, the winner is who rolls the biggest total!!!
Currently these changes lose 8 distinct terrain and tactical choices with two catchalls, that arn't even remotely linked? why would a orchard have the same characteristics as a village, and we gain coastal dunes, an oversight I have been pointing out for years, hardly qualifying "to provide some interesting choices with terrain selection"
Overall its seems you are undervaluing the terrain battle, for example, as an attacker, you give the opponent a Town or Village, it could be guaranteed to attract troops to defend it or maybe your plan is to split a battle field to your advantage, or even provide a salient for breaking though enemy lines. endless uses for using terrain to win your battle, there are myriad examples of battles won because of clever or unusual use of terrain.
Quote from: Roger on September 15, 2025, 11:01:40 AMSeriously these guys are slowed by Orchards or Vineyards???
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/t52xufcLTAw
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/XOy6eoSlOfQ
A single elephant probably not. A formation of elephants accompanied by escorts.
That said, I guess they probably should move the same speed as loose or skirmishing infantry. Perhaps change their maximum movement distance to 3 BW in difficult going?
EDITED: (My mistake, thanks to Bahdabum for pointing it out).
Where is this new table?
Quote from: steads on September 16, 2025, 10:33:55 AMWhere is this new table?
https://mortem-et-gloriam.co.uk/meg/2026-competition-amendments/
Quote from: Roger on September 15, 2025, 11:29:03 AMSimplification is not a useful target in isolation, simplifying technically complexity may be ie mixed flank and frontal attacks, but simplification for its own sake just brings mediocracy, eventually you can reduce the game to 1x 6 sided dice per tug, the winner is who rolls the biggest total!!!
Currently these changes lose 8 distinct terrain and tactical choices with two catchalls, that arn't even remotely linked? why would a orchard have the same characteristics as a village, and we gain coastal dunes, an oversight I have been pointing out for years, hardly qualifying "to provide some interesting choices with terrain selection"
Overall its seems you are undervaluing the terrain battle, for example, as an attacker, you give the opponent a Town or Village, it could be guaranteed to attract troops to defend it or maybe your plan is to split a battle field to your advantage, or even provide a salient for breaking though enemy lines. endless uses for using terrain to win your battle, there are myriad examples of battles won because of clever or unusual use of terrain.
I don't really see the point of merging all these different pieces, seems more boring and less interesting. Just lots of rough going. Change for the sake of change...
Quote from: lionheartrjc on September 15, 2025, 12:14:57 PMQuote from: Roger on September 15, 2025, 11:01:40 AMSeriously these guys are slowed by Orchards or Vineyards???
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/t52xufcLTAw
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/XOy6eoSlOfQ
A single elephant probably not. A formation of elephants accompanied by escorts.
That said, I guess they probably should move the same speed as loose or skirmishing infantry. Perhaps change their maximum movement distance to 3 BW in difficult going?
EDITED: (My mistake, thanks to Bahdabum for pointing it out).
There is probably an argument for Elephants accompanied by archers to be slowed to loose speeds, and to cut off the argument about Mounted archers, would it be realistic to assume the extra weight slows them to loose?
Quote from: badhabum on September 16, 2025, 03:00:59 PMQuote from: steads on September 16, 2025, 10:33:55 AMWhere is this new table?
https://mortem-et-gloriam.co.uk/meg/2026-competition-amendments/
This has 2 links to the PBS table but no working links to the new terrain definitions.
Quote from: steads on September 17, 2025, 12:48:12 PMQuote from: badhabum on September 16, 2025, 03:00:59 PMQuote from: steads on September 16, 2025, 10:33:55 AMWhere is this new table?
https://mortem-et-gloriam.co.uk/meg/2026-competition-amendments/
This has 2 links to the PBS table but no working links to the new terrain definitions.
Works correctly for me. Anybody else had a problem downloading the new (proposed) terrain definitions?
(Steve, if you still have an issue and are the only one - I can email them directly to you).
Richard
So, uh, I know I'm a little late to the party here, but...
... eh, I don't think I like the new terrain table very much.
The current/old terrain table is just so wonderfully evocative!
The specificity of the terrain table is still able to spark my imagination after years of playing. (I'm even one of those annoying players who sometimes picks specific terrain pieces for narrative or scenic purposes!) And the specific quirks of certain pieces has helped make for some pretty memorable games (e.g. an unexpected TUG of camels storming a large patch of rocky ground that my loose troops had occupied; archers lurking in a luckily-placed hilltop vineyard checking an infantry advance; etc.).
I don't think the proposed simplified terrain table is capable of capturing what makes MeG's current terrain table so fun!
(And the fact that the proposed simplified table adds even more pieces that unexist themselves if you roll a 3-4 adds to the only thing about the current terrain table that actually does annoy me a little-- but I think that might just be a me problem. XP )
Hello,
We used the table for the first time in detail today, and I am of the opinion that the wording for the amount of settlements in the QRS could be misunderstood by some non-native speakers.
Perhaps this could be helped by a wording in the likes of : "In Coastal and Standard, any number may be selected by any player. In other Territory types, only one piece may be selected by the Defender and none by the invader"
Best,
Antoine
Quote from: Princeps on November 01, 2025, 07:47:03 PMHello,
We used the table for the first time in detail today, and I am of the opinion that the wording for the amount of settlements in the QRS could be misunderstood by some non-native speakers.
Perhaps this could be helped by a wording in the likes of : "In Coastal and Standard, any number may be selected by any player. In other Territory types, only one piece may be selected by the Defender and none by the invader"
Best,
Antoine
Thank you for the constructive suggestion. I have updated the table.
Quote. Coastal dunes. Difficult terrain, reducing visibility to 2BW. No dice roll for sector. Must be placed touching a deep water flank specified as a sea (invader specifies
So if the coastal is not defined as a sea no Coastal dunes allowed . Correct ?
Second Coastal question : it must touch the "sea" but may it "overlap" in the center deployment area or limited at placement to the flank deployment area
Quote from: badhabum on November 09, 2025, 12:32:53 PMQuote. Coastal dunes. Difficult terrain, reducing visibility to 2BW. No dice roll for sector. Must be placed touching a deep water flank specified as a sea (invader specifies
So if the coastal is not defined as a sea no Coastal dunes allowed . Correct ?
Correct. This is an invader's choice.
Quote from: badhabum on November 09, 2025, 12:38:07 PMSecond Coastal question : it must touch the "sea" but may it "overlap" in the center deployment area or limited at placement to the flank deployment area
Yes, because there is no dice roll.
Note: The player who doesn't place the piece may still roll to move or remove the feature - but the "must touch the deep water flank" restriction still applies.
Quote from: lionheartrjc on November 10, 2025, 08:20:32 AMQuote from: badhabum on November 09, 2025, 12:38:07 PMSecond Coastal question : it must touch the "sea" but may it "overlap" in the center deployment area or limited at placement to the flank deployment area
Yes, because there is no dice roll.
Note: The player who doesn't place the piece may still roll to move or remove the feature - but the "must touch the deep water flank" restriction still applies.
'Must be placed touching deep water flank (no dice roll for sector).' As previously 'placed' has been used for terrain such as deep water and their limitation to flank sectors has never stopped them being moved into the centre sector by the opponent, might I suggest
'must always be touching a deep water flank (no dice roll for sector), even if subsequently moved.'
and worth noting that it appears that as worded there is no limitation on a coastal sand dune, 8bwX 8bw, being placed so it juts 4bw into the centre sector, more if placed at an angle so only a corner touches the deep water. Not dicing for sector has the implication that the sector deployment part is also not in force
and for clarity on forts, 'Must be touching defender's rear table edge.'
to
'Must always be touching defender's rear table edge, even if subsequently moved.'