Nick,

I really enjoyed the podcast - unfortunately home stuff got in the way of taking part.

I thought you all brought up some great tweaks to build scenarios and provide some different deployment ideas or victory conditions based on the existing mechanisms - all really useful.

Its clear that folk on the podcast are playing games which are not strict points match ups - either historical or campaign based. Please, please get everyone involved to post these up on the FB page and (to a lesser extent) on the forum (as this is more preaching to the converted than publicising the non-competition side of the game more. Please also post the scenario details as a pdf in the files section.

As we discussed at the Pacto event - I am of the opinion that if MeG is to grow in the way Simon wants then this is the way to go as it will appeal much more to the average club player than competitions (no slur on competitions intended here).

So - yes - please, more historical/scenario content on all MeG media - Podcasts, Forum and FB page!

I think it should remain as is. Flank attacks should be devastating. Reducing it to +2 would mean that higher class troops would shrug a flank impact off with little effect on them rather than making them more resistant to a degree.

IMO the effect of Drilled should (as it does) make it easier to turn to face but shouldn't make a target more resistant to the impact. The effect is more a morale thing which is reflected in quality. So for example Exceptional against Average will already reduce the effect by two but if flank were reduced to +2 this would render then effectively immune to Flank attacks in the majority of situations.

Just my 2p worth! 

I am a huge fan of MeG and have been playing it for a number of years now. I attend 3 different clubs and can get no one to play. The reason is simple - they are perceived as being (as several people have said to me) "just one of those anal complex competition orientated rules sets" . This view has come from this forum and FB page where "the competition" is clearly the focus.

Nothing wrong with competitions and they are enjoyed by attendees. However, I would be surprised if more than 15-20% of club gamers ever attend a competition or wish too. My personal opinion is that if you wish to grow the game by the huge numbers you are targeting you need to switch tack to go for the informal club gamer and not the competition audience.

This does not mean dumbing the game down in any way but it does mean more emphasis on fun. I also really believe the rules would gather more support if there were a number of historical scenarios and also pick up game scenarios (flank attack, ambush, river crossing etc) with objectives other than "kill the enemy". It adds to the fun and that increases popularity.

This is not intended as any criticism - I would like to have a lot more opponents and for MeG to grow massively. I just think the focus on competitions (weather conscious or accidental) will not achieve that.

Ah, understand now! Many thanks.

Could someone explain the reason Skilled missile versus Superior troops gives the "S" = wounds bonus.

I don't question that Skiiled should get some form of bonus but why against only Superior?

Effectively if you take better quality troops they are more vulnerable than poor/average troops. Why?

There is no explanation in the rule book

Many thanks

Thanks Richard

Why (aside from the Oda clan) are late Samurai commanders rated as instinctive not professional?

Oda are and whilst I would agree Oda Nobunga was a better general than most  (but this would rate hime Legendary rather than making him Professional) - all clans used highly organised battlefield communications, logistics and battlefield maneuverability and formations. All had professional Ashigaru foot soldiers. All had spent their lives training for war.

By comparison the Ming Chinese and Korean Josen are Professional.

The use of a floating professional general by the Samurai would accurately represent their command structure with the commander often remaining behind the lines to command the disposition and tactics of his subcommanders.

In my opinion the Samuarai are incorrectly rated  - both in reflection of historical capabilities and in comparison to near neighbours.

What do you think?

Can someone please clarify this rule (from Late Samurai):

"SPECIAL RULE: Murakami charging or being charged replace Powerbow with Experienced Firearms (note they can use Shoot and Charge characteristic in this situation only). This must be notified to your opponent when they are deployed."

How is this built into the points as Shoot and Charge does not appear in the stat line?
It appears to be a situational change of weapons - why is this notified to opponent when deployed as it appears a standard characteristic not a list choice?

Lawrence - the "fast results generator" is explicitly referenced in the Campaign section of the main rule book P197, Chapter 11/F as a tool which is noted as being available on the website. At the moment we have searched high and low but can't find it.

Presumably the tool will allow you to enter the attacking and defending force details and it will do some magic and give you a result - time taken to take the castle, casualties etc.

The point being that siege games are generally fairly dull and difficult to represent so in a campaign it provides a mechanism to quickly get a result in an abstract way rather than trying to do on the table top.

We are soon to kick off a Samurai campaign and will be incorporating supply points for towns and castles so this will keep the pace of the campaign and provide the mechanism for taking castles.

Does anyone know if the tool mentioned in the rules was ever built or where we can find it, please.

Ah, brilliant. Thanks Steve - all clear now. 

Thanks Richard - where does it define which are which, please?

I can see for example in the early 100 years war English that in the Troop notes it mention that optional barricades are allowed. But in the Sengoku Japanese ( which we're about to get on the table) there is no reference to the Barricades being optional (yet they were not automatically deployed historically).

I had always thought that characteristics were mandatory - if they were included in the list you included them in the army builder and paid the points - even if e.g. stakes, you had no intention of using them.

I note that in the new army lists the heading is "optional characteristics".

Have I been doing this wrong - can you elect to take them or not?

I cannot find anything in the rules or the lists to confirm either way.

I think that the defences used in this period should not be Barricades, as per the army lists, but would better fit the description of Obstacles under the rules.

My understanding is that the majority of field defences were designed to break up charges rather than give any protection against missiles.

Most manufacturers sell either wooden pavaises or bamboo bundles strapped together as such. As far as I am aware these were really only deployed during sieges rather than in battlefield conditions.

Battlefield defences to my mind looked more like a tall post and rail fence with a large gap at the mid point - see the illustration here:

https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2018/11/21/firepower-the-battle-of-nagashino/

This would clearly not give any significant defence against missiles and in particular teppo.

What do you think?

Thanks Richard - understand now 

Mind you generally a bit tricky for us as we're mostly using Impetus bases.....

Thanks for your help Richard. So the 3 files not in front to front contact, in the existing melee the unit is already fighting in, charges forward (leaving their two other stands in the existing melee)? Surely they then lose conact and split their unit into two parts and will end up in two separate unconnected melees?

Sorry I'm being dumb here but I didn't realise you could split a unit in that way.