ok i seen talk in the forum about downgrading units by removing melee expert or making mounted LS less effective.
Now i am afraid that if to many lists are changed in that way it wil result in a few "excellent armies" and a lot of 'so-so' armies and even more 'rubish armies'.
If i remember well at the start of MEG the aim was to make armies that were balanced. Now to me it seems that due to pet-peeve armies being discussed to make them better, some armies will instead be +/- downgraded, lots of armies will be less interesting.
It already happened with all the armies having ghulam or ghilman who lost melee expert.
other armies loosing longspears and get short spears/shieldwall instead.
I am quite afraid future changes might make things less fun.
Already in themed tournaments we see always the same armies being played.
ok ok i stop ranting
In next year's version, all troops will be downgraded to poor with no weapon factors at all. No archaeological evidence proves that weapons were ever actually used in ancient warfare.
Quoteother armies loosing longspears and get short spears/shieldwall instead
Well that does not bother me as cavalry may charge and the infantry can hold easely as shieldwall is effective even if only one rank deep ( that bothers me, 2 rank deep PK but only one ...)
No list changes along these lines are being planned or talked about. Simon has started a thread on possible rule changes and any comments can be posted there.
Richard