Thanks for that update. It's always interesting to read what happened and what armies were successful.

Just curious as to how Cancon 26 went this year, especially with regard to MEG? I hope it was as enjoyable as ever.

How did MOAB go this year? 8 players I read elsewhere, which makes it sound like a fair bit of fun.

In my view it's an absolute no-brainer! Yes, yes, yes.
It is not complicated.
There should not be an artificial separation between skirmish and non-skirmish shooters. And why for non-skirmish infantry? The least likely of any to get around a flank.
As for doesn't come up much! Of course it doesn't at this time because it is pointless. There is no benefit now, so why go to the effort to place shooters there? But if it might be rewarded? That's a different matter. Still not easy, but worth the attempt, especially with skirmish light horse.
Again, if I had a vote, it would be Yes!
 

Horse archer armies, and you might include Numidians as well if you wish, rely on Fire and Movement. And that, despite so many other positives is not MEG's strength. I'm not sure that much can be done which would not alter the fabric of the game. However, here are a few thoughts.
Change Feigned Flight from a charge to a pursuit. Feigned Flight is a brilliant concept but a failed actuality, has anyone ever seen it work? By changing its timing and making it into a pursuit it better reflects its nature. I'd also think about allowing one unit per command to acquire it.
Double moves allow Skirmish cavalry in particular to travel great distances, but what then? They can't threaten anything for a while. They are out of shooting range and can't charge next turn as they are skirmishers. Also, if flexible it's a turn at least to get into a formation that can charge. There is no benefit to shooting into a flank or rear so why throw away two turns to get there? Perhaps upgrade one colour on the dice for firing into a flank or rear? This would set the cat among the pigeons and ensure that skirmish cavalry behind the flanks had to be taken seriously.
Make it quicker for Flexible Cavalry to change formation and be effective. With Flexible Foot, one card and they are good to go, tow or three bases deep and three or four wide and away you go. For Flexible Cavalry, one card to change from Loose to Skirmish and then one to change from two bases deep and three wide to three wide and two deep, and the other way round as well.
I like Steppe style armies and their history is fascinating but good luck if you want to play them using MEG. This is not a criticism of these rules, they are in many ways brilliant, the very idea of Flexibles itself is outstanding. But these are just some musings that might promote some thought as to how they could be improved re Horse Archer Armies.
Regards,

Thank you very much.

Regarding recent rule clarifications etc, is there still a place to go to get all updates as once there was? I'm probably just failing to find it so I'd be grateful for some directions.
Regards,

Personally, I don't quite understand the need to make shooting even less effective than it already is. Very few armies and very few units have access to Green dice. The probability of doing significant damage does certainly exist but it is hardly game changing. It does bring a bit of fun in however, I have never seen three Skulls on Green (what, one chance in two hundred and sixteen or so, and at maybe two, tops three throws in a game, perhaps once in a hundred games if you are lucky), but it would live in the memory of both players and provide a bit of unbridled joy. It doesn't happen very often so why make it impossible?
A second reason is that slowing is not the be-all and end-all of all shooting. Maybe you want to erode their strength? Remember also, that a Skull is the only result that a General can't reverse, wounds and slows are subject to a General's intervention. If you ask me what are the chances of that? I'd say a bloody sight better than your chances of throwing a Skull, even on one die, in the course of the very few shots available during your normal game.
I know I might be jumping the gun here as no real argument has been provided to justify such a radical change, but I'd rather get my two bob's worth in early rather than rage against the moon of a done deal.
Regards,

Thank you for the information.

I have seen some mention of Pacto Shove and Shatter rules, I have not seen them and I was hoping someone could provide me with a thumbnail outline as to what the differences are?

Thanks for the information. Looks like an enjoyable event.

Best of luck to all those attending the MeG competition at Cancon 25 in Canberra this Australia Day long weekend. I hope someone has the time (and inclination) to put up a report after all the dust has settled.

That's the way to go as far as I'm concerned.

Regarding Block Charges, for what it is worth, I have always assumed, and have played it as such, that though the start may be as a Block, it is possible that as a consequence of a charge the components of (the former block) break up. I am aware that shooting at a Block can slow all of it down, but I see that as slightly different. By way of example, a Block charged javelin armed cavalry who evaded but with different throws so that one unit was caught but two would have been unreachable if the other two TUGs in the Block stayed where the other made contact.
I may have been wrong, but it seems sensible to me. Therefore, I'm on the side of continue the charge as normal.
Best Regards,

Thanks for posting this report, it made really interesting reading. A fair cross-section of opponents as well I think.