OK so as far as I understand it shooters evn if not being charged themsleves can shoot at enemy chargers to their front passing within 1BW.
However,  the same shooters cannot shoot at enemy standing to receive a charge: in other words they cannot support their own guys going in?

Quite right about that, why would you. I was just following on, hypothetically, from the real example I currently have.
Substitute say spears for the bows. If the spears charge or counter charge the enemy to their front they can be shot at by the units within 1BW to flank and rear. If they stand to receive said charge they cannot be shot at during the charge phase. Just trying to get my head around that.

To clarify then, basically if the situation remains the same but the bowmen counter charged they could be shot at but as they are standing to receive they cannot be shot at?

I get the shooting at chargers/counters bit of this. One thing I cannot find is shooting at troops who stand to recieve a charge other than by the chargers themselves.
Currently have a game where some Lancastrian bowmen are being charged by Galloglaich. Unfortunately for the bowmen they have skirmishing Irish horse and kern to flank and rear within 1BW but cannot find anything allowing them to shoot the bowmen who are standing to receive.
No point waiting as by the shooting phase there is likely to be a fight going on and they cannot shoot then either.

Hi Simon,

Thanks for the detailed reply.
I am based in the New Forest and go to the Wessex Wargames Society in Colbury.

Not entirley sure what I have missed with the Gallic type cavalry in the lists. "Quite a few superior" is essentially 1 UG for Lowland Gallic and Germans.

Still not convinced by the Hastings scenario. Yellow vs white dice is still a massive advantage( not sure what the "7W to 5W on the dice means) considering the A-D are uphill. Maybe your hard won victory at Salute meant the luck was all on the A-D side.
I could certainly see the Normans charging through at the end of the day when the shieldwall was thinned out, as it happened, but at the moment I'm not sure. Will have to set it up and try it.

Certainly the Normans outscouted the A-D but wherever they put themselves the line was "weak and wobbly". Even if they had put themselves opposite the huscarls the charge combat is exactly the same, the difference admittedly would have been the melee. That I think would make it worth putting the Huscarls in a front rank and hope enough survive the inpact to swing those axes!

I will report back after giving it a go. Do you happen to have the lists you used at Salute please?

Hi Richard,

Thanks for the reply.

Having used Indians and Parthians in previous test games I was a bit surprised how effective the Normans shooting was. As you suggested it was unusual as I was using the same white die the Indians and Parthians found so ineffective! The shock was how easily the milites ran down the fyrd even though they were a two deep shieldwall(red vs white die?) I expected them to thin them out a bit then break off and charge again but not necessary.

I am quite happy with the lists for the dozen or so armies I have but I think I may tinker a little bit as you suggested for friendlies and re-enactments.

many thanks

Paul

Apologies but a bit long winded after a months worth of learning MeG. I bit the bullet just before the lockdown and got a copy of MeG, two years after a conversation with Alisdair Harley butmainly because of the half price sale! I didn't intend it to replace FOG as that ruleset is used by 90% of our club's ancient players and there hasn't been much drift away from it. You might find the odd game of ADLG or Sword and Spear once in a blue moon but essentially it's wall to wall FOG and FOGR.

So in lockdown and furloughed I have played half a dozen solo games using the method Simon recommended. Armies used have been Classical Indians, Seleucids, LRR Romans, Spanish, Galatians, Hellenistic Greeks, Vikings, Anglo-Danish and Normans.

So, for what it's worth what have I found? Just to set the record straight I am no scholar or expert in this period, I'm a wargamer and have been for a long time. What I know has been read from secondary sources and my prejudices have formed through playing WRG 6th, 7th, DBM, FOg and a couple of others. I am genuinely curious about how some decisions were made about lists, and I cannot find answers in any of the forums, and I am sure they were prompted from far more up to date information than my old "Armies of the Macedonian and Punic wars" and their ilk.

Well, the game is fast and bloody. The set up rules are very good and it's almost like campaigning before the main event.
I like the command system which harks back to the limitations imposed by DBM and it's PIP dice rather than the free for all you get in FOG. The division of generals into Professional and Instinctive is good as well as the floating option for the former.
People complain about the fighting file by file in FOG but that didn't bother me so neither does it in MeG. I found shove and shatter results were pretty rare.
Shooting can be more effective than in FOG but overall shooting armies are equally ineffective when I use them. I do like the slowing effect of fire, that can really bugger up your plans. Unprotected mass shooters are still highly vulnerable to skirmishers but I was never convinced of that in FOG either.
Shoot and scoot armies will take a lot of getting used to. MeG really cuts down the trading time for space these armies need, especially if they move second.
Morales through the KAB system is pretty easy
Most of the games were pretty balanced except the last one.

As far as the lists go I see there is a general reduction in Superior troop types in comparison to FOG which is probably a good thing. Whole entire armies of Superiors was probably a tad unrealistic. A bit surprised though with the wholesale reduction of most Gallic, German and Spanish cavalry to average. I always thought they were much better than Roman cavalry of the period which is why the Romans recruited them. Apparently not.
Gallic tribes could field up to 30% cavalry which is reflected in the lists but not the Galatians who can only field half the cavalry of the other Gallic lists.
I also see that the argument about thereuphoroi/thorakitai has been settled in favour of them being hoplites under a different name rather than a troop type that could operate in rough ground.
Also not sure why the Anglo-Danish Select fyrd appear no better trained than Great fyrd or it's dregs. I thought the Select Fyrd were basically the same type of part-time soldier farmers that the Vikings called up but the latter get to be formed.

The last game I played was where it appeared to me to go horribly wrong, assuming I got the rules right. Anglo-Danish vs Normans.
The Normans invaded and massivly outscouted the A-D. The latter got lucky though in two very secure flanks so it loooked like hastings without the hill. Obviously with outscouting the Normans could, and did, mass their best cavalry opposite a couple of units of Select Fyrd. They also sent the archers forward to soften them up which they duly did taking three bases off the two units in two rounds of shooting. Not good but still a two deep shieldwall. Then the cavalry come in.
No shatter obviously but who needed that? Straight through one unit in the charge phase and the other collapsed during melee.
OK so not on a hill like Hastings but even if the A-D had been that's still yellow dice vs white so not good.
How about putting Huscarls in the front rank of as many units as possible? No better as what they gain in Superiority they lose in 2HCC at contact.
Again, I thought even the Normans had a hard time taking down close formation infantry frontally. Could be done especially as the ranks thinned but in this case they went straight through them, 13 bases eliminated for the loss of two.
I have refought Hastings under FOG and it was difficult for the Normans as the A-D get a long spear but under MeG it appears the Normans could have broken Harold by lunchtime rather than at the approach of dusk. The vikings with integral shooters would have stood a better chance.

In summary then a very good ruleset that will be more interesting to play than FOG because of the preliminaries and C&C. I have one opponent at least lined up to play as he doesn't do FOG so that at least will give me the occasional game against another human being!