Hi all
With Skulls out of the way and things a little calmer I am returning to finalising the 2020 version.
This will be called "The Mortem et Gloriam Compendium" and will be in book form complete with high grade artwork.
Compendium because in a single book it will have Pacto, Magna and Maximus (the current full version).
I am redrafting it to make all three fold into the single rule book smoothly.
At the same time I am tightening presentation and language.
The new book will be supported by a range of videos with Hydaspes as a display game in all three game sizes.
We then have MeG Games:
Maximus: full figure count of 70-120 bases played in 3 hours ... for those who like to see real armies on the table!
Magna: 40-60 bases played in 2 hours ... especially good for playing 28mm on a 6x4 standard table
Pacto: 20-30 bases played in 1 1/4 hours .... 15mm on a 3x2 using the same number of figures as double DBA or ADLG
The 2019 version is playing extremely well and specially the army feel. I have played Huns, Byzantines, Romans and Mongols this year and never had any of these armies feel so good and varied ... and I have been playing since 4th edition.
We are finding a few tweaks we would like to make for 2020 but they are minor in form. We have the flex to do so as this becomes the lasting long term version which will stand for at least 5 years and probably longer. We are also then well placed to create a few different language version thanks to volunteers of support in a few countries. My time will then switch to ReG and then WW2.
MeG has always been a listening ruleset where the intelligence of the many players is hugely valued and responded to. This is a fundamental part of my own philosophy on rule creation. So if you have ideas you want considering, tweaks you think have merit, or areas you find confusing that you want tidying up ... or indeed any special request. Then use this stream to post them up for me to think about.
To many years fo MeG in all three forms and to a big push to grow from our global base of about 1200 players in 2020.
S
2 front corners and at least one back corner behind front to count as a flank attack is my fav.
HH
Quote from: Hunter on July 12, 2019, 01:37:26 PM
2 front corners and at least one back corner behind front to count as a flank attack is my fav.
HH
That one is in. Makes them more material visually I agree.
(official base depths used if it ever matters)
Roger - a little big change.
HH
A very sensible one.
Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on July 12, 2019, 02:09:54 PM
Quote from: Hunter on July 12, 2019, 01:37:26 PM
2 front corners and at least one back corner behind front to count as a flank attack is my fav.
HH
That one is in. Makes them more material visually I agree.
(official base depths used if it ever matters)
Base depth will always matter. So chariots will have a harder time to get behind the flanks, same for nellies ...fleet of foot more interesting as you move faster and so can reach behind the flank more easely ...BIG change
so 20mm for infantry, right? Even if they have used 15mm depth infantry? Otherwise an advantage to those using other game system bases.
Quote from: badhabum on July 12, 2019, 08:09:37 PM
Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on July 12, 2019, 02:09:54 PM
Quote from: Hunter on July 12, 2019, 01:37:26 PM
2 front corners and at least one back corner behind front to count as a flank attack is my fav.
HH
That one is in. Makes them more material visually I agree.
(official base depths used if it ever matters)
Base depth will always matter. So chariots will have a harder time to get behind the flanks, same for nellies ...fleet of foot more interesting as you move faster and so can reach behind the flank more easely ...BIG change
Pikes based on 15mm bases will be able to do flank charges the easiest ... :o
Indeed. So propsing to KISS as easiest to see if a back corner is round a flank but has a compromise on angles.
That said whe you combine speed and base depth I suspect it makes little difference in practice.
The only alternative is to fix it a a set distance which is fiddly to measure.
So far front corner at least 1/2 BW beyond the line. Then al angles are the same.
Or leave it as is and better explain it in the context of dynamics.
Thoughts welcome as the purpose of the stream and early days ...
S
why not : 2 front corner and a back corner of a
ether 4 by 2cm base
or
4 by 3 cm base
to make it a bit more difficult
or
to make it even less easy
4 by 4 cm base
regardless of the bases of the unit
in case of suobt : reblace bases by one without miniatures to check
Hmmm
More complex than I though. Maybe better to leave it and folk just have to be more careful?
HH
don't meddle with flank charges, not broken.
look at what TuGs can do in movement phase when starting their move very close to the enemy.
give TuGs a chance to react when the TuG they are in with contact breaks off. It seems ridiculous that a TuG just stands there as their opponent breaks off. By playing a white card, the TuG broken off from should have the choice to make a full move straight ahead in 5.4
Quote from: rayfredjohn on July 13, 2019, 11:39:06 AM
don't meddle with flank charges, not broken.
look at what TuGs can do in movement phase when starting their move very close to the enemy.
give TuGs a chance to react when the TuG they are in with contact breaks off. It seems ridiculous that a TuG just stands there as their opponent breaks off. By playing a white card, the TuG broken off from should have the choice to make a full move straight ahead in 5.4
Do not disagree but would like clarification on your thinking. Presumably this follow up could not make contact with the enemy breaking off or if you think it could would this count as a charge in the next impact phase.
Quote from: marshalney2000 on July 13, 2019, 02:05:10 PM
Quote from: rayfredjohn on July 13, 2019, 11:39:06 AM
don't meddle with flank charges, not broken.
look at what TuGs can do in movement phase when starting their move very close to the enemy.
give TuGs a chance to react when the TuG they are in with contact breaks off. It seems ridiculous that a TuG just stands there as their opponent breaks off. By playing a white card, the TuG broken off from should have the choice to make a full move straight ahead in 5.4
Do not disagree but would like clarification on your thinking. Presumably this follow up could not make contact with the enemy breaking off or if you think it could would this count as a charge in the next impact phase.
Agree. No contact possible
Quote from: rayfredjohn on July 13, 2019, 11:39:06 AM
give TuGs a chance to react when the TuG they are in with contact breaks off. It seems ridiculous that a TuG just stands there as their opponent breaks off. By playing a white card, the TuG broken off from should have the choice to make a full move straight ahead in 5.4
This was mentioned by one of the newer players in our group. Cataphracts can be charged by lancers and then the lancers break off and sit at 5BW (at the cost of a KAB admittedly) and it takes the cataphracts out of the game for a couple of turns. Would it be so easy for, say Norman cavalry to break off from Nikephorian cataphracts and sit outside charge range? In effect the breaking off unit get two moves while the 'pursuing' cataphracts are standing there.
My 2c/2p worth of comments raised elsewhere in the forum ;D
- Small quality armies can get outscouted by large rubbish armies even though they are supposedly the 'outscouters'.
Eg an army of 11 UGs of mostly cavalry, professional generals, outscouts a 17 UG army (13 TUGs and 4 SUGs) of tribals and mostly foot by 60%. The rubbish army puts down 4 SUGs and half of its TUGs, the cavalry army then puts down his entire army, then the other player deploys 6 TUGs last even though he was outscouted by 60% - he deploys a third of his army after the other player. Why not matching percentages so that the smaller army isn't disadvantaged and gets to put at least a couple of TUGs last?
-SUGs screening TUGs from cannons.
It seems a bit wrong that a thin line of open formation skirmishers can stop cannon balls from hitting the pike kiel behind it. To rub it in the SUG is shot at on black dice, so the guns in effect do nothing. Another formerly popular rule set allowed artillery to target the unit behind skirmishers, I think it's a reasonable idea.
- Horse armour cost and effectiveness.
A fully armoured horse with a fully armoured man on top is shot at by powerbows on green dice if within 1BW (if the archer is skilled the cavalry cops yellow at short range and green dice at long range!). I get the idea that an unprotected horse is vulnerable to arrows but surely if the horse is covered in armour (and cataphract armour was thick, and Italian armour of the later 15th century was top quality) the powerbow shouldn't get the 'vs cavalry' upgrade as well as ignoring the armour? If a man in plate armour is shot at on white dice then a horse in the same armour should get the same benefit, not suffer twice as many casualties. A normal bow shooting at a plate armoured knight on an armoured horse is rolling black. Rolling white with crossbows & powerbows (ie doing double the casualties of bows) is good enough IMHO. Rolling green, white+ (or yellow!) against the best armour of the day is too much. That stuff was virtually arrow/boltproof, longbow/yumi mythology notwithstanding. And moving 4BW is a huge disadvantage. If the horse is slowed down, almost by definition it must be carrying a substantial load of armour, not just wearing a chamfron. The knights in the Italian Wars book are overcosted for minimum benefit.
Cheers,
Craig
Quote from: craig.w on July 14, 2019, 04:00:43 AM
Quote from: rayfredjohn on July 13, 2019, 11:39:06 AM
give TuGs a chance to react when the TuG they are in with contact breaks off. It seems ridiculous that a TuG just stands there as their opponent breaks off. By playing a white card, the TuG broken off from should have the choice to make a full move straight ahead in 5.4
This was mentioned by one of the newer players in our group. Cataphracts can be charged by lancers and then the lancers break off and sit at 5BW (at the cost of a KAB admittedly) and it takes the cataphracts out of the game for a couple of turns. Would it be so easy for, say Norman cavalry to break off from Nikephorian cataphracts and sit outside charge range? In effect the breaking off unit get two moves while the 'pursuing' cataphracts are standing there.
maybe simply :
As an outcome move leave a choice :
Break off - 2 MU and stay facing the ennemy
Run off full move and facing away from the ennemy
In break off both units will stay at charge distance " we charged, we breakoff to regroup and charge again "
In the run off chance is the one that runs away will be out of charge distance but it will leave both units more room to move one way or another in the next mouvement phase "we charged, we have had enough, lets go see elsewhere "
Quote from: craig.w on July 14, 2019, 04:27:13 AM
My 2c/2p worth of comments raised elsewhere in the forum ;D
- Small quality armies can get outscouted by large rubbish armies even though they are supposedly the 'outscouters'.
Eg an army of 11 UGs of mostly cavalry, professional generals, outscouts a 17 UG army (13 TUGs and 4 SUGs) of tribals and mostly foot by 60%. The rubbish army puts down 4 SUGs and half of its TUGs, the cavalry army then puts down his entire army, then the other player deploys 6 TUGs last even though he was outscouted by 60% - he deploys a third of his army after the other player. Why not matching percentages so that the smaller army isn't disadvantaged and gets to put at least a couple of TUGs last?
-
why not :
outscouted army deploys 60%
the outscouter deploys 4 UG
outscouted 4 UG
and so on untill nothing is left
Quote from: craig.w on July 14, 2019, 04:27:13 AM
M
-SUGs screening TUGs from cannons.
It seems a bit wrong that a thin line of open formation skirmishers can stop cannon balls from hitting the pike kiel behind it. To rub it in the SUG is shot at on black dice, so the guns in effect do nothing. Another formerly popular rule set allowed artillery to target the unit behind skirmishers, I think it's a reasonable idea.
were LF screens common in that time? are there not to many LF units available ?
Thanks. Keep comments coming here.
All helpful stuff.
S
Quote from: craig.w on July 14, 2019, 04:00:43 AM
Quote from: rayfredjohn on July 13, 2019, 11:39:06 AM
give TuGs a chance to react when the TuG they are in with contact breaks off. It seems ridiculous that a TuG just stands there as their opponent breaks off. By playing a white card, the TuG broken off from should have the choice to make a full move straight ahead in 5.4
This was mentioned by one of the newer players in our group. Cataphracts can be charged by lancers and then the lancers break off and sit at 5BW (at the cost of a KAB admittedly) and it takes the cataphracts out of the game for a couple of turns. Would it be so easy for, say Norman cavalry to break off from Nikephorian cataphracts and sit outside charge range? In effect the breaking off unit get two moves while the 'pursuing' cataphracts are standing there.
You need the good cards to make your breakoff so is it really that simple ? + the Nikes do have some CL too . So not that easy .
Flank charge : keep it simple . As for letting units answer to charges, we already have more mobility than should be and that because it is a game . Now too much mobility, action, reaction, rereaction ...where will that lead ...Charges by 1/4 move and so on ...beware what you want to change.
I think break off's at full move is odd.
In movement a 180 degree turn and a move suffers a - 1MU
Fall Backs are limited to 2 or 3 MU
How can you justify a break off at full move?
Limiting a break off to to a full move less 1 or 2 MUs (or to the same distance as a fall back) appears more logical to me. It would also overcome some of the criticism made in earlier posts eg Cv breaking off from Cats
Many thanks.
Listening to find those modest tweaks that are sure fire and safe improvements.
S
Quote from: jasonbroomer on July 16, 2019, 08:13:13 AM
I think break off's at full move is odd.
In movement a 180 degree turn and a move suffers a - 1MU
Fall Backs are limited to 2 or 3 MU
How can you justify a break off at full move?
Limiting a break off to to a full move less 1 or 2 MUs (or to the same distance as a fall back) appears more logical to me. It would also overcome some of the criticism made in earlier posts eg Cv breaking off from Cats
I think this is already high on the agenda and gathering support.
Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on July 13, 2019, 08:13:22 AM
Indeed. So propsing to KISS as easiest to see if a back corner is round a flank but has a compromise on angles.
That said whe you combine speed and base depth I suspect it makes little difference in practice.
The only alternative is to fix it a a set distance which is fiddly to measure.
So far front corner at least 1/2 BW beyond the line. Then al angles are the same.
Or leave it as is and better explain it in the context of dynamics.
Thoughts welcome as the purpose of the stream and early days ...
S
I think the 1/2 BW behind the lines would be a good compromise .
Quote from: badhabum on July 16, 2019, 02:06:54 PM
Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on July 13, 2019, 08:13:22 AM
Indeed. So propsing to KISS as easiest to see if a back corner is round a flank but has a compromise on angles.
That said whe you combine speed and base depth I suspect it makes little difference in practice.
The only alternative is to fix it a a set distance which is fiddly to measure.
So far front corner at least 1/2 BW beyond the line. Then al angles are the same.
Or leave it as is and better explain it in the context of dynamics.
Thoughts welcome as the purpose of the stream and early days ...
S
I think the 1/2 BW behind the lines would be a good compromise .
Fiddly though. I am concerned about anything that gives rise to arguments around micro measuring.
I am not a fan of just the front edge being used but it at least has the merits of being simple and easy to judge.
Yes avoiding fiddly is vital to me.
I think I have a better couple of answers to the issues raised.
Pondering.
S
Quote from: marshalney2000 on July 16, 2019, 03:51:18 PM
Quote from: badhabum on July 16, 2019, 02:06:54 PM
Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on July 13, 2019, 08:13:22 AM
Indeed. So propsing to KISS as easiest to see if a back corner is round a flank but has a compromise on angles.
That said whe you combine speed and base depth I suspect it makes little difference in practice.
The only alternative is to fix it a a set distance which is fiddly to measure.
So far front corner at least 1/2 BW beyond the line. Then al angles are the same.
Or leave it as is and better explain it in the context of dynamics.
Thoughts welcome as the purpose of the stream and early days ...
S
I think the 1/2 BW behind the lines would be a good compromise .
Fiddly though. I am concerned about anything that gives rise to arguments around micro measuring.
I am not a fan of just the front edge being used but it at least has the merits of being simple and easy to judge.
We could all have purple Maths sets.
Worry not there will be nothing require more brain strain.
Am finding simpler answers to some of the issues raised and will report back after some testing.
KISS and change only clear winners is the philosophy.
S
My input is to keep changes few and minor. For example, flank charges are a bit too easy, but if a change makes it trickier to decide if it can be done, I am against a change. Break offs seem wrong at present, but if there is a change it should apply to all troop types and be simple. Simplicity of rules with depth of play is what makes this the best Ancients game ever. Eyes on the prize!
I've seen and done enough flank charges that do nothing that I'd rather keep the rules as is than change to calculating half bases or using the back edge.
One thing about flank charges that doesn't seem right to me is that you can get just a fraction behind the front line, and wheel slightly so that there is only a corner contact, making it harder to then flank charge the flanker. The unit flank charging gets the best of both worlds, fights on a flank but doesn't expose his own flank.
If a unit is in corner to corner contact only (ie supporting file), it can only fight by doing a 90 degree wheel. Why not 'align' the rules by making chargers do the same, instead of letting them sit at 45 degrees. It will probably decrease the number of flank charges.
Quote from: AntiokosIII on July 17, 2019, 11:01:09 PM
My input is to keep changes few and minor. For example, flank charges are a bit too easy, but if a change makes it trickier to decide if it can be done, I am against a change. Break offs seem wrong at present, but if there is a change it should apply to all troop types and be simple. Simplicity of rules with depth of play is what makes this the best Ancients game ever. Eyes on the prize!
This is certainly the top priority.
Indeed the grand total is half a page of A4 so far.
I think we have simple solutions to flank charges, break offs and making Bw armies (mounted and foot) a bit more viable.
No new big ideas - storing any that come up for 2025. The rest is safe little tweaks.
S
Quote from: craig.w on July 18, 2019, 12:43:21 AM
One thing about flank charges that doesn't seem right to me is that you can get just a fraction behind the front line, and wheel slightly so that there is only a corner contact, making it harder to then flank charge the flanker. The unit flank charging gets the best of both worlds, fights on a flank but doesn't expose his own flank.
If a unit is in corner to corner contact only (ie supporting file), it can only fight by doing a 90 degree wheel. Why not 'align' the rules by making chargers do the same, instead of letting them sit at 45 degrees. It will probably decrease the number of flank charges.
Yeah this has always stuck out at me as a bit of the rules that feels very gamey and too much reward for not enough risk.
In real life, many flank charges were successful because the common troopers were to busy looking forward that they did not see what was coming to hit them.
Units were much less maneuverable than in the game
So I am happy as it is now. Players should watch their flanks and cover them, not ask for too many changes.
Quote from: badhabum on July 21, 2019, 05:59:13 PM
In real life, many flank charges were successful because the common troopers were to busy looking forward that they did not see what was coming to hit them.
Units were much less maneuverable than in the game
So I am happy as it is now. Players should watch their flanks and cover them, not ask for too many changes.
I think I agree
Break offs just seem wrong.
Consider something like:
- Continue facing towards the enemy, count movement as -1 BW when breaking off AND a KaB test regardless (change QRS)
- Finish facing away from enemy, it is as currently written.
Are they that many breakoff ?
Cavalry should be able to do it.
I am not that happy with the current "shieldwall" ;
It cancels the effect of shove and shatter and is cheap .My problem lies with the fact that a shieldwall is effective even when you only got one rank ( vs shove and shatter ). That means it will always cancel shove and shatter . I would make it effective if in 2 ranks minimum .
Or change the points if too cheap?
Not far of having the master list of tweaks for the compendium.
Nothing momentous. More a cleaning up and KISS of 2019.
After Britcon I will put them out for comment.
S
Can I come back to break offs again? Last night I had a unit of heavy foot into my opponents archers. They were probably going to collapse next turn (down to 4 out of six, unprotected etc) and so he broke them off and took a yellow KaB using F4 (Break Off from equal speed opponent). I then couldn't reach them because of other units so he saved the archers. I would have lost massively anyway so it didn't affect the outcome and it was a good game - but that particular manoeuvre did leave a bad taste. Are there any historical examples of archers (or similar infantry) being able to disentangle themselves from heavier foot who are pressing them hard? It just doesn't feel right to me.
In fact the main use I've seen for F4 is exactly this - as a Get Out of Jail Free card for damaged units.
I suggest that F4 should only apply to Cavalry breaking off. This seems a fairly simple change, although I can think of other ways to go
(at the other extreme just delete F4)
all the best
Dave P
Thanks Dave.
I am thinking of changing Break Offs to be only for troops that are faster and a -1BW distance.
Means FoF bowmen could escape in your scenario.
Means Cv cannot get out of range of Cataphracts follow up charge.
Means all breaking off from bows stay in range.
Thoughts welcome.
Si
I like this solution. It's simple and comprehensive.
ARE there any FoF bowmen? Good troop type if there is!
Quote from: AntiokosIII on July 26, 2019, 06:33:22 PM
ARE there any FoF bowmen? Good troop type if there is!
Nubian
I think making them -1 movement is probably enough as it will generally keep you in charge range.
I'm not at all influenced by this being the main survival method of my Inca!
Martin
I'm going to start a Spartan army and I'm hoping there won't be too many changes in the lists that affect the army. I don't like to think that I'm going to paint something that isn't going to be on the list after December. I really enjoy MeG Please don't make too many changes.
Be assured, we currently have no changes planned for any of the Spartan armies.
Any changes we make to army lists are likely to make a particular army better rather than worse. If we make changes they are also unlikely to involve changing minimas (except where already noted in the List Queries section) and are likely to increase rather than reduce maxima.
Richard
Quote from: martymagnificent on July 26, 2019, 11:31:47 PM
I think making them -1 movement is probably enough as it will generally keep you in charge range.
Martin
Matching particular rules mechanisms to historical accounts is always difficult - but I feel that the other part of Simon's change, only allowing Break offs if faster than your opponent, feels historically and mechanistically right. As I said hard to imagine how archers (for example) disentangled themselves from infantry pressing on them - and then reformed ready to shoot immediately afterwards
Quote from: Raiderd on July 27, 2019, 01:16:23 AM
I'm going to start a Spartan army and I'm hoping there won't be too many changes in the lists that affect the army. I don't like to think that I'm going to paint something that isn't going to be on the list after December. I really enjoy MeG Please don't make too many changes.
There won't be any as far as I know.
Very limited changes.
A list of little tweaks responding to minor issues raised like this one.
I'll put the list up with rationale in a few weeks time and doubt there will be any major issues for anyone.
S
Thank you thank you for responses I can happily paint Spartans now
Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on July 26, 2019, 04:25:52 PM
Thanks Dave.
I am thinking of changing Break Offs to be only for troops that are faster and a -1BW distance.
Means FoF bowmen could escape in your scenario.
Means Cv cannot get out of range of Cataphracts follow up charge.
Means all breaking off from bows stay in range.
Thoughts welcome.
Si
Wouldn't this make shooty cavalry armies worse? Say a crusader lancer managed to catch a mameluke as it skirmished. With this rule change the mameluke would have to fight until the bitter end. Not saying this is necessarily right or wrong. I don't see breakoffs used all that often against equal speed opponents because of the KAB, so maybe it's not a big deal. Although in my last comp some average knights broke off from my superior fanatics and saved themselves...
I liked the idea that a break off is like a skirmish or evade. If you want to stay facing then you will be much closer.
Quote from: craig.w on July 28, 2019, 04:40:10 AM
Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on July 26, 2019, 04:25:52 PM
Thanks Dave.
I am thinking of changing Break Offs to be only for troops that are faster and a -1BW distance.
Means FoF bowmen could escape in your scenario.
Means Cv cannot get out of range of Cataphracts follow up charge.
Means all breaking off from bows stay in range.
Thoughts welcome.
Si
Wouldn't this make shooty cavalry armies worse? Say a crusader lancer managed to catch a mameluke as it skirmished. With this rule change the mameluke would have to fight until the bitter end. Not saying this is necessarily right or wrong. I don't see breakoffs used all that often against equal speed opponents because of the KAB, so maybe it's not a big deal. Although in my last comp some average knights broke off from my superior fanatics and saved themselves...
I liked the idea that a break off is like a skirmish or evade. If you want to stay facing then you will be much closer.
Also, you cannot play Cannae and retreat with infantry facing another same speed infantry . There is a KAB but still possible ...
True and good feedback.
S
Cannae is, I think, unique. It would not be sensible to base a rule that could affect every game on it - I have painful memories of DBMM development going through some bizarre contortions trying to accommodate it. Sometimes you just have to leave things to scenario specific.
Mind you, you could, essentially, do it with fall back moves if you start at the right time.
Agree with Nik that the Cannae move is not that critical. More concerned with the impact on shooty cavalry who break off finding other cavalry back at their throat. Being bow armed cavalry in front of lancers is already not much fun but this would be a nightmare change.
Played a game against Hunter a week or so ago which was really weird. He had lancer armed cavalry while virtually all mine were bow armed. Hunter sat on the baseline waiting for me to advance which I did but stopped far enough away so he was not at my throat if he moved forward a full move and I had already allowed this by moving my troops. He would not advance until that situation arose. We sat like this for three moves collecting good cards, discarding those that were not and making no moves at all. Packed up and went home.
Let me explain the situation better. He wanted me to move my bow cavalry first into shooting range so that he could move second and close within one base width. I was not going to move into bow Range until he moved his lancers first so I could then stretch the distance to three base widths.
Quote from: marshalney2000 on July 28, 2019, 09:02:35 PM
More concerned with the impact on shooty cavalry who break off finding other cavalry back at their throat. Being bow armed cavalry in front of lancers is already not much fun but this would be a nightmare change.
Disagree. I'm quite relaxed about it. I find I very rarely actually break off from other mounted.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on July 28, 2019, 07:31:42 PM
Cannae is, I think, unique. It would not be sensible to base a rule that could affect every game on it - I have painful memories of DBMM development going through some bizarre contortions trying to accommodate it. Sometimes you just have to leave things to scenario specific.
Mind you, you could, essentially, do it with fall back moves if you start at the right time.
It wasn't really a break off. More likely just been pushed back in combat which if we do the optional shove rules it then still works as the Gauls will go back 1BW most phases of combat. So likely back 3BW in total. Close vs Loose of course.
S
Cannae was "unique" in the sense that if we are to follow the official history it was a trap 8)
But it happened quite regularly that victorious units, pushing their opponents did uncover their flanks . But that is another story.In the game we have to wait till we break the opponent and pursue to do that ::)
Quote from: nikgaukroger on July 28, 2019, 09:48:28 PM
Quote from: marshalney2000 on July 28, 2019, 09:02:35 PM
More concerned with the impact on shooty cavalry who break off finding other cavalry back at their throat. Being bow armed cavalry in front of lancers is already not much fun but this would be a nightmare change.
Disagree. I'm quite relaxed about it. I find I very rarely actually break off from other mounted.
True, I haven't done it very much because usually after a charge and melee phase the horse archers are a bit sick looking and the KAB from a break off might push them over the edge to breaking, but I have done it, and others have done it to me, so it is nonetheless a change for the worse.
This is from Vasary's "Cumans and Tatars" [2005], p.56 quoting Choniates "They [i.e. the Cumans] fought in their habitual manner, learnt from their fathers. They would attack, shoot their arrows and begin to fight with spears. Before long they would turn their attack into flight and induce their enemy to pursue them. Then they would show their faces instead of their backs, like birds cutting through the air, and would fight face to face with their assailants and struggle even more bravely. This they would do several times, and when they gained the upper hand over the Romans [Byzantines], they would stop turning back again."
That seems to support the idea that mounted should be able to break off.
Interestingly, he also quotes Akropolites on p.55 "He [Kaloyan] was not in Adrianople for long, but he sent the Scythians [the Cumans] against the Italians [the Latins] to use the Scythian war techniques against them. Now it was the habit of the Italians to ride on prancing horses that were completely covered by armour, so that their charges against the enemy were slow. The Scythians, by contrast, were armed more lightly, so they attacked the enemy more freely."
No armoured horses in the Frankokratia lists ;)
Quote from: badhabum on July 29, 2019, 10:36:59 AM
Cannae was "unique" in the sense that if we are to follow the official history it was a trap 8)
But it happened quite regularly that victorious units, pushing their opponents did uncover their flanks . But that is another story.In the game we have to wait till we break the opponent and pursue to do that ::)
Which is a deliberate simplification to avoid moving figures all the time. The optional SHOVE rule will go into the compendium though as its great in refights.
S
Quote from: craig.w on July 29, 2019, 11:21:18 AM
Quote from: nikgaukroger on July 28, 2019, 09:48:28 PM
Quote from: marshalney2000 on July 28, 2019, 09:02:35 PM
More concerned with the impact on shooty cavalry who break off finding other cavalry back at their throat. Being bow armed cavalry in front of lancers is already not much fun but this would be a nightmare change.
Disagree. I'm quite relaxed about it. I find I very rarely actually break off from other mounted.
True, I haven't done it very much because usually after a charge and melee phase the horse archers are a bit sick looking and the KAB from a break off might push them over the edge to breaking, but I have done it, and others have done it to me, so it is nonetheless a change for the worse.
This is from Vasary's "Cumans and Tatars" [2005], p.56 quoting Choniates "They [i.e. the Cumans] fought in their habitual manner, learnt from their fathers. They would attack, shoot their arrows and begin to fight with spears. Before long they would turn their attack into flight and induce their enemy to pursue them. Then they would show their faces instead of their backs, like birds cutting through the air, and would fight face to face with their assailants and struggle even more bravely. This they would do several times, and when they gained the upper hand over the Romans [Byzantines], they would stop turning back again."
That seems to support the idea that mounted should be able to break off.
Interestingly, he also quotes Akropolites on p.55 "He [Kaloyan] was not in Adrianople for long, but he sent the Scythians [the Cumans] against the Italians [the Latins] to use the Scythian war techniques against them. Now it was the habit of the Italians to ride on prancing horses that were completely covered by armour, so that their charges against the enemy were slow. The Scythians, by contrast, were armed more lightly, so they attacked the enemy more freely."
No armoured horses in the Frankokratia lists ;)
It does and I was thinking of it a bit more. Better left in and some troops not alowed to break off perhaps.
S
a break off characteristic ? might open a panodras box for the armylists
Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on July 29, 2019, 03:37:09 PM
It does and I was thinking of it a bit more. Better left in and some troops not alowed to break off perhaps.
S
I was thinking one possibility would be to allow breaking off from same speed opponent for mounted but not for foot. It is things like archers breaking off from legionaries that seemed really odd to me (and they only do it in the game as a way of rescuing damaged units not as part of a historical doctrine like Normans (who charge in again)or Cumans (who go back to skirmishing)
I still think its frustrating that units break off, without a KaB test, move a full move and face the enemy. Its disheartening to have a unit at break point and then they get a no-KaB run away AND still face you, with zero consequence. So many times units next to break point just get to piss off, not even expose their rear. It doubles down the frustration if the combat before one rolled blanks on great dice to not do that 1 wound needed AND then just sit there watching them move out of charge range without consequence. I'd like all break offs to have a KaB test (or at least if they want to continue to face the enemy).
Frustration is part of the game
Break Off is not always easy and historically, many mounted units did withdraw to recover and come charging once again.
It is not unheard off the some fighting between infantry did "pause" while each other caught breath ...
In some cases there is a KAB, some not . Not a problem for me but the unit breaking off should remain in charge range of his opponent or a universal max 3 MU for mounted or 2 MU for foot same as when you use the M12 or M13 move
Quote from: badhabum on August 03, 2019, 03:58:24 PM
Frustration is part of the game
Break Off is not always easy and historically, many mounted units did withdraw to recover and come charging once again.
It is not unheard off the some fighting between infantry did "pause" while each other caught breath ...
In some cases there is a KAB, some not . Not a problem for me but the unit breaking off should remain in charge range of his opponent or a universal max 3 MU for mounted or 2 MU for foot same as when you use the M12 or M13 move
I would imagine cavalry breaking off involved turning your back on the enemy. I think all cavalry break offs should cause a KaB test.
It is my opinion that no break off should result in being out of charge range from the enemy broken off from.
Quotethink all cavalry break offs should cause a KaB test.
Not so sure as it was pretty common in some armies ...Byzantines, normans etc...
Could just up the card cost for break-offs to make them more expensive or impossible for say tribal?
See the posted proposed tweaks which address the issues raised here in some form.
S
Quote from: jasonbroomer on August 12, 2019, 03:54:26 PM
Could just up the card cost for break-offs to make them more expensive or impossible for say tribal?
The other possibility would be to allow break-offs of only 1 MU. That means the other player could still charge them even if his unit was immobilised in combat with another part of the frontage ...but it would have no impact on the Norman style "break off, charge in again" doctrine and would also allow the Steppe nomad-y dance (because the broken-off unit would be able to evade if then charged).
Some thoughts
There is a cross over line between rules and characteristics, rules should be simple and apply to everybody, once you have to start parsing rules to accommodate specific troops of an army or era, i.e "see breaking off thread" then we should really be talking about characteristics, with the additional advantage that you can ascribe points (or not) to them, to balance armies and influences, and definitively easier to alter during the life of the rules.
Mixed front and flank charges from a non flank position, should always be frontal in both charge and melee, units hit in corner with time to see should "flatten" to accommodate, Charge's from a flank position happens to quick and mostly unseen by troops in time to react, so still allow's the flank base contact to fight the flank on both charge and melee.
Ability to contract and slide past the flank should maybe be a Characteristic, generally Tribal would not be able to ignore enemy apparently exposed on there flank!, formed do not have the skill or experience to ignore enemy to there front, but some drilled certainly could be trained and experienced enough to manage it.
maybe limit wheeling for tribal or formed within 1bw of an enemy?
From discussions we had at Britcon , on the continent we would like to have a real stability. Even a UK player discussed with me the feeling we had to have new army lists or rule changes from one tournament to another. We would like to stick to what is written so write it well because we loose players that do not want to play MEG anymore.
Some of the points
May a unit that made a skirmish shoot during the shooting phase if it did not have the opportunity during charge phase . The written answer is NO as written in the official 2019 clarries. The referee told me YES because it had been clarified otherwise recently . Black and White . I bowed to the referee's decision but wondered if the written rules still were useful.
Now if we stick to it, they may shoot, a unit that did make a run away will it have to shoot one color lower or will it have none of the disadvantage of having run away.
SKIRMISHING/RUNNING AWAY : the SUG/TUG may go forward/Backward or the direction of the charge. It gives such units a great maneuverability as it may move after that even limited but it is possible and by doing so be in the rear or flank of an enemy unit . A running away unit may move more than the maximum as it may move 2 MU after running away. IMO, the unit should first try to run away from the direction of the charge. Another way to do it would be by restricting the possible moves after SK or Running away even more .
Some wanted clarifications on the path of charge. As it is written, it is the path that the unit would cover while charging so some people have difficulties with shooty units in the back that shoots at the charger that is to the front . I understand both logics but whatever the final decision will be it needs to be written black on white .
Remember, on the continent we play less tournaments and do not have direct access to Simon's input as regularly as you my dears :-)
So my first report. Will ponder for the next points .
Quote from: badhabum on August 15, 2019, 02:59:25 PM
From discussions we had at Britcon , on the continent we would like to have a real stability. Even a UK player discussed with me the feeling we had to have new army lists or rule changes from one tournament to another. We would like to stick to what is written so write it well because we loose players that do not want to play MEG anymore.
Some of the points
May a unit that made a skirmish shoot during the shooting phase if it did not have the opportunity during charge phase . The written answer is NO as written in the official 2019 clarries. The referee told me YES because it had been clarified otherwise recently . Black and White . I bowed to the referee's decision but wondered if the written rules still were useful.
Now if we stick to it, they may shoot, a unit that did make a run away will it have to shoot one color lower or will it have none of the disadvantage of having run away.
SKIRMISHING/RUNNING AWAY : the SUG/TUG may go forward/Backward or the direction of the charge. It gives such units a great maneuverability as it may move after that even limited but it is possible and by doing so be in the rear or flank of an enemy unit . A running away unit may move more than the maximum as it may move 2 MU after running away. IMO, the unit should first try to run away from the direction of the charge. Another way to do it would be by restricting the possible moves after SK or Running away even more .
Some wanted clarifications on the path of charge. As it is written, it is the path that the unit would cover while charging so some people have difficulties with shooty units in the back that shoots at the charger that is to the front . I understand both logics but whatever the final decision will be it needs to be written black on white .
Remember, on the continent we play less tournaments and do not have direct access to Simon's input as regularly as you my dears :-)
So my first report. Will ponder for the next points .
Very conscious of both points Jacques so aiming to make minimal changes that are all positive and lock it down. And after than we can do a French translation based on what was done in the past. That will help I am sure and set us up to grow in France and Belgium.
S
Quote from: badhabum on August 15, 2019, 02:59:25 PM
Some of the points
May a unit that made a skirmish shoot during the shooting phase if it did not have the opportunity during charge phase . The written answer is NO as written in the official 2019 clarries. The referee told me YES because it had been clarified otherwise recently . Black and White . I bowed to the referee's decision but wondered if the written rules still were useful.
Now if we stick to it, they may shoot, a unit that did make a run away will it have to shoot one color lower or will it have none of the disadvantage of having run away.
By the way, how must it be played now : to shoot or not to shoot latter ?
STILL NO ANSWER ? 8)
Whatever the current rules and clarries say.
But short of time to relook at present.
In uk.
Si
Quote from: badhabum on September 04, 2019, 10:24:13 AM
STILL NO ANSWER ? 8)
An Umpire Ruling is NEVER definitive, even when I made it! Umpires are fallible and particularly when trying to play their own game, do the best they can in the circumstances.
That said, I still cannot find where in the 2019 Official Clarifications (https://mortem-et-gloriam.co.uk/smf/index.php?topic=210.0) it says that a unit that skirmished but did not shoot cannot shoot in the Shooting Phase.
Richard
It would be illogical if they did not.
Closest is:
Quote
SKIRMISHING WHEN CHARGED FROM FLANK/REAR
• Is allowed to get a free turn if you are prepared to take the risk, but troops so doing are considered to have done a shooting action and cannot shoot in the shooting phase (they just had no real target).
And regarding this, I asked if some files of a unit shoot in the charge phase, can other files of that unit shoot in the shooting phase. Nik indicated that shooting is by file, so yes, they can. But this seems to indicate they may not be able to do so, since if they skirmish they cannot shoot.
The bit I quoted just now refers to a specific set of circumstances when it is unlikely/impossible that any files will have been able to shoot in the charge phase - and then they have to opt to use a free turn before they are considered to have shot, if they don't make this turn IMO nothing stops them shooting.
I also think that the bit I quoted is unnecessary and should be removed from the 2020 edition.
If we do it by files we need to leave markers to indicate which file shot already and which didn't
I thought we were not supposed to leave markers after a phase.
Kis?
There is no "if", shooting is by file. I've never found the need for markers for this.
Disregard my last message, I will just wait for the final official version
You shoot by file and always have done. Never needed to ever mark that as it is always very easy to remember or even still see on the tabletop. Must have played 500 games now and never needed to mark any of that.
Turn around when charged from rear and shoot is too dangerous. It is quite logical methinks if you cut beyond the abstraction. If charged, you shoot for a bit and once chargers get close you draw swords. So if you are facing away and turn at end of move to fight you have a sword in had now. If you were still holding the bow only believe me it would be more than +1 against on contact!
This is why I consider they have consumed their opportunity to shoot.
Easier, but more brutal would be to change skirmish to facing in original direction of facing rather than facing enemy and not allow the turn at all.
S
Quote from: lionheartrjc on September 05, 2019, 01:17:32 PM
Quote from: badhabum on September 04, 2019, 10:24:13 AM
STILL NO ANSWER ? 8)
An Umpire Ruling is NEVER definitive, even when I made it! Umpires are fallible and particularly when trying to play their own game, do the best they can in the circumstances.
That said, I still cannot find where in the 2019 Official Clarifications (https://mortem-et-gloriam.co.uk/smf/index.php?topic=210.0) it says that a unit that skirmished but did not shoot cannot shoot in the Shooting Phase.
Richard
Hy Richard,
I did not say that an Umpire cannot make mistakes . But as you told me that it had been recently clarified I searched . If you follow the link you provide you will find this on the PDF document ( pg 8-9 MEG TEMP CLARIES ) :
SKIRMISHING WHEN CHARGED FROM FLANK/REAR
• Is allowed to get a free turn if you are prepared to take the risk, but
troops so doing are considered to have done a shooting action and cannot shoot in the shooting phase (they just had no real target)
[/i][/b]
So now I ask my simple question : how should it be played. Was there a clarification I did not find ?
Sorry,
I hadn't realised that you were specifically referring to the troops that choose a Skirmish option when charged in the flank/rear. No - the 2018 clarification still applies, so they cannot shoot in the Shooting Phase. It is only in this specific situation.
Richard
For good reason as cheesable otherwise.
And actually entirely logical as explained.
z