I'm confused about the pdf. I was under the impression that it was just a minor revision - but some players I know are saying that the new rulebook introduces enough changes that you can't play a game where players have the different rulebooks.

Having shelled out on the full blown boxed set a short ehile ago I would be diappointed to have to buy the rules again - but is this correct?

Well on the wound points I would just add that in ReG taking a KAB test causes a wound plus whatever is rolled on a die - so a KAB test will always have a result. Not so in MeG - an S result has no effect so a series of 'good' rolls with an army collapsing around it could see some units unaffected. I really like the escalation of wounds caused by KAB tests as multiple things go wrong.

Whilst lots of things in ReG are shooty it doesn't mean they do shoot. I have plenty of troops in my ReG armies where the best option is still to just get stuck in.

Definately agree re the S in melere being a wound.

In terms of the Romans, specifically........scales can vary between armies so you get an full sized army fighting what is effectively a large warband. Imperial Roman armies tended to comprise 2 Legions plus Auxiliaries - in the Army Lists units can be 4 bases strong & you can have up to 64 of them (16 units) so it would be totally possible to use the chequerboard rule......but i'm sure there are lots of traits that can be easily applied to many armies.

I started playing MeG back in lockdown and pretty soon after quite a few other people in the club were playing it too. We looked at ReG when it first came out - but it didn't feel quite right......however, over the last couple of years it has truly come into it's own. To the extent that we rarely play MeG now at my club - which is a shame.

There is just so much extra flavour - 3 wounds per base, KAB tests causing a wound, army traits & characteristics etc, etc. We have all said that we would love it if MeG were to follow the road that ReG has taken. Roman Legions in chequerboard, phalanx as keils etc., feigned flight as a Army Trait - there are loads of things that on the face of it could be relatively easily ported over as the mechanics are already play-tested.

I know the argument is that the anbcient period is so large - but arguably it went through fewer transitions than the Renaissance. We currently play The Italian Wars, English Civil War, 30 Years War, War of the Spanish Succession, The Deluge regularly and have Japanede, Indian & Turkish armies all in the pipeline. All pretty varied, ranging from armoured Gendarmes, to Winged Hussars to unarmoured Dragoon - from Keils & Tercios, through to firepower based infantry and everything else in between.

So in a recent game my opponent declared a charge with a 2 base wide SUG on a 3 base wide SUG of mine - I followed this with a charge declaration of my own on him - fine so far - but then a TUG that was just in charge reach declared a charge on my SUG. We were really unsure what happens here - as the active player my opponent chose to move his SUG first, which would have locked me in combat - so when the TUG charged I would be destroyed - in the end we thought it seemed sensible that having a charge declared on me by a TUG would negate my previous charge declaration & let me respond as normal so that I could skirmish away. Was this right?

Also in a situation where his 2 base wide SUG was already in combat with my 3 base wide SUG - if they were then charged by a TUG I presume that I wouldn't be able to evade as i'd be locked in combat - so when he contacted me would he destroy the whole unit, or just the file he contacted?

Gr8, thanks.

OK - so i've downloaded the April Army Builder but still can't work out how to enter expendales atm. I can't see them on any drop down lists. Probably just me being stupid........

Thanks for the contributions. It seems to me that it is very likely, from the limited evidence available, that the Etruscans used the pilum - which was possibly later adopted from them by the Romans (maybe at the same time they adopted the 5 classes of infantry organisation from the Etruscans). So in my opinion it seems that the Etruscan list does need to be updated - maybe even for the Etruscan League to have its own lists including the option for the CinC to have Devotio bodyguard units - I would be happy to have a go at this if required.

I also see the Field of Glory rules allow Etruscans to use impact weapons at the time of the Etruscan League. The issue with the Camillan Roman list is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Etruscans used the manipular system - they fought in a single line - so the mixed TUG doesn't represent their method of warfare.

Of course actual historical evidence from so far back that would prove this one way or the other is practically non-existant - rust stains in the earth, suggesting a pilum shape etc.

Interestingly since posting this I have found a post from earlier in the year when lionheartrjc said "I think there is a general consensus that the Etruscans adopted a heavy javelin (pilum) in the 4th century.  Wall paintings from Etruria show these alongside a hoplite shield and sword. Whether the Romans adopted the pilum from the Etruscans or the Samnites is less certain. How the Etruscans fought is guesswork (similar to the Camillan Roman).  There is a case for allowing an Etruscan army from 400 BCE to have 1/3 of the infantry 1st to 3rd classes adding Charge Only javelin (similar to the Camillan Roman)."

The best 'evidence' I can find after a cursory search is a published article reference pila finds in tombs & Pliny the Elder attributing the pila to the Etruscans. See the extract below from a paper by Juliusz Tomczak called "Roman military equipment in the 4th century BC: pilum, scutum and the introduction of manipular tactics"

"In Northern Italy weapons similar to light (socketed) pilum appeared at least as early as the 5th century BC. From the first half of this century comes the 45 cm long haft (including a 6 cm head) from Montericco in the Po Valley. It is possible that this weapon was of Etruscan provenance, like the light pilum haft 120 cm long held in Vatican Museum, and supposedly yielding fromEtruscan tomb of the 5th century BC at Vulci. If in fact a weapon of this type appeared first in Etruria, it would confirm the account of Plinius the Elder, who attributed the invention of pilum (and hasta velitaris) to Tyrrhenians (Etruscans) (Plinius, 7.201)."

i have a DBMM Etruscan League army that I have started to use with MEG as I love the rules. I must admit though to being a bit surprised to see that there is no option to upgrade Etruscan holpites to impact weapons from long spear. Certainly in DBMM up to 1/2 of the hoplites could be upgraded in this way. A similar option applies in Impetus where a you can take up to 2 - 6 units of pilum armed infantry and 6 - 18 units of long spear, giving you between 1/3 to 1/2 of the infantry being upgraded in this way. And, of course, several figure manufacturers (including Forged in Battle) make Etruscan infantry with pilum figures.

Are there any plans, or could there be, to include this upgrade in the Etruscan lists?

Hi, looking at The Italian Wars Army lists i have a couple of questions about how some troops work or should be depicted.

1. If Swiss and/or Landsknects are upgraded then they are depicted as a rank of handguns  and 3 ranks of pikes. If they shoot then presumably they go down a colour as they are only 1 rank deep but when they fight they fight as 4 ranks of likes - is that right?

2. Presumably any handguns folded into the pike count towards any minimum of maximums in the army lists?

3. How does the late Spanish colunella  work? What i have read suggests it was a mix of handgun, pike & sword & buckler men - so should it be depicted that way? As everyone in the colunella has firearm i assume they fire at full effect and then fight as 3 ranks of pike

Hi again,

Continue to have great games with MeG - the latest being with Nikephorian Byzantine vs Mongol Empire. One query we did have, that we couldn't find the answer to, was regarding flexible cavalry - so when these are in skirmish formation & are charged are their responses limited to those of skirmishers (i.e. run away or skirmish) or can they revert to loose formation to receive the charge or countercharge? If so does this have to be prompted in the charge phase? We played that they couldn't but it would be good to be sure we were right (or wrong)!

1. So if I charge a unit into an existing does the unit in melee still fight in the charge phase (as they haven't charged), or do they count as receiving charge at the halt etc?

2. If a unit of Byzantine kataphtactioi breaks off vs. a unit that is in melee with the kataphractioi & another unit does it take a KAB test? It's slower than it's opponents but they are still engaged in melee?

'steads' said there is a benefit in upgrading from loose to close order - but the bows are still loose formation, so very vulnerable in the 2nd rank once the front rank dies.

Someone else said the 2 deep formation was to encourage historical tactics - to my mind that is largely determined by the General, not the troops. When I have used these in 2 ranks i had 4 units of 6 bases. I used them to aggresively advance across the table, forcing my opponent to charge me or get shot to pieces. IMHO if the front rank long spear didn't have bows, then i would use 3 units of 8 - but would be much more worried about flanks because of my reduced frontage and would probably try to sit them somewhere where at least 1 flank was secure - and stay there - but then the 4 deep formation is too deep.

it does seem odd that a formation that had 2 ranks of spear, 3 ranks of bow & then another 2 ranks of spear have some of them given weapons they didn't use to make them work properly. Although thinking about it I suppose effectively each rank of a 2 rank formation contains some long spear & some bow - so maybe this is the best representation? I do think that the integral shooters option is less realistic. 

Thanks for reminding me that I have 'Sowing the Dragons Teeth' - a quick glance at this suggests the heavy infantry didn't have bows, deploying 2 ranks of spearmen, then 3 ranks of archers, then another 2 ranks of spears. So based on the Nikephorian Byzantine army lists skutatoi with integral archers would 'seem' to be the best fit (on the tabletop they'd be 2 ranks heavy spear with a base of bows behind) - arguably the regrade would work too if the front rank spearmen weren't also bows (i.e. 2 ranks just long spear with 2 ranks bows).

...but they are all bow if upgraded, the front 2 ranks have long spear too. So can they shoot in 4 ranks?