Yesterday we had a small Pacto event with new rules, so I can give some feedback.

Good:
- shooting without skulls but with slows - works fine.
- Wound on S with shove makes sense.
- Weaker KaBs - work nice (still can do a lot of mess), however might be a bit confusing for newbies as generals roll normal colours - the old version was easier to remember.
- TuGs 3-deep - very nice.

Not so good:
- Skull on S with shatter - too strong.
- Ambushes are almost impossible - the cards are too large!

Bad:
- block moves... We played with normal version fo this rule, as it would be just too much of a change.

To consider:
- the lack of fall back on infantry sucks the same as in old Pacto, please consider putting it back at least as an option.

Quote from: lionheartrjc on September 02, 2022, 04:11:00 PM
(...) I struggle to find examples of infantry falling back in good order in front of an enemy in accounts of ancient battles.  Caesar attempted it in Gaul and it went badly wrong... (...)

I think you shouldn't use such argument when it is in the main game...
Especially that most of us here surely know the "inverted crescent" tactics, which is exactly falling back with the center infantry under the pressure of the enemy to draw him deep and then encircle from the flanks with cavalry.

But even if you wouldn't want to simulate the famous Hannibal moves, then fall back is a tool that greatly helps correcting mistakes in deployment. It was during my second Pacto battle that I thought "WTF I can't fall back with my infantry?" It's not a simplification - it's a bug. ;-) Which puts newbies into irreparable situations.

You know - if someone went through the whole rulebook, his brain didn't melt and he still wanted to play the game, then he would surely be able to comprehend such simple rule.

Quote from: lionheartrjc on December 07, 2022, 02:58:46 PM
The KaB test is really a question of how dramatic seeing other UGs/generals killed should be.  I like the fact that Poor troops can get the skull, but average and superior troops don't. 

Since the very beginning of MeG in Poznan, we used the home-rule that Skull on KaB test on UGs gives just a wound. Tested multiple times, worked very nice.

One more thing - did you think about giving infantry the possibility to fall back? Without it playing "classic" battles like Persians vs Greeks makes it hard for shooty Persians on foot.

Quote from: lionheartrjc on April 01, 2022, 01:02:28 PM
As far as I am aware visibility only affects two situations, ambushes (9.10 B.5 page 181) and shooting (9.6 C.2 page 155).  Note you can charge a UG that isn't visible.

In the terrain charge there are three distinct forms of wording:

1 visible within 2BW over a ridge (hills, mountains and sand dunes)
2 x visible at YBW.  (brush, tall crops, village, boundaried fields, orchards, vineyards, town, woods and forest)
3 visible at YBW from outside, those inside can see and shoot out (gully, wadi).

For 1, must a ridge line be clearly defined?  If a hill comes to a single high point, there is in effect an infinite series of ridge lines from the high point in all directions.  If UGs are either side of one of those lines then visibility is reduced.  If a hill is modelled or shows ridge lines rather than a single high point, then the UGs must be either side of one of those ridge lines for visibility to be restricted.

For 2, visibility goes both ways.  If the UG within x BW of the edge of the terrain, they can see out and can be seen.  So an ambush must start at least x BW from the edge of the terrain (visible from the opponent's half or from the opponent's half of the table).

For 3, visibility is one way.  You can only see in if you are within Y BW, but from inside you can see out.   This is the only case that provides the opportunity to shoot but not be shot at due to visibility.  An ambusher can be placed at the edge of the terrain as long as the terrain does not go into the opponent's half of the table).

Hope that is clear.

Richard

isn't this interpretation different than the one given here:
https://mortem-et-gloriam.co.uk/smf/index.php?topic=2064.0

?

Do I get it right?

UG can defend a town boundary (and get the "barricades" claim) only if it is wholly within the terrain.
UG defending a town is affected or badly affected in combat.
Enemy fighting a UG defending a town is affected or badly affected in combat.

Which means that an infantry SuG defending a town gets +4 claim in charge combat against a loose infantry TuG.

@Francis are you sure such situation is even possible?
B cannot qualify as frontal combat and find itself in such position without aligning.
I might be wrong but I think you can't align to the enemy's side edge if you did not start the charge in his flank zone.

Quote from: Francis Small on January 04, 2022, 08:21:59 PM
But a plain reading of the rules as written would seem to more strongly support the original claim that both could fight if they contact different edges.

But the problem is that they don't...
If you look at it strictly from the geometrical point of view then the whole situation goes absurd, because in fact file1 contacts the corner and file2 contacts the side edge.
So either both contact the side edge while file1 additionally contacts the front or none of them contacts the front edge (depending on whether you assume that the corner belongs to the edge or not).
I doubt that the author's intention was to dive into such deliberations.

I understand that the intention was that you fight against the edge respective to the zone in which you started the charge.
If so, then you could probably fight with both files, provided that you arranged the whole case so they started the charge in different zones.

What if before the charge file1 was in the front zone and file2 was in the flank zone?

Is this true?

Thank you sir, I expected this but wanted to be 100% sure.

Still no points in armylist for that upgrade.

Dear authors of armylist upgrades,
when you wrote "Instead of being deployed separately, bolt shooters may be attached to a unit of legionaries." you meant:
a) deployment in an army roster, or
b) deployment before battle (after outscouting in PBS)?

If a) then the armylist should containt the option of upgrading a legion with a bolt, together with points;
if b) then the example given in the armylist Notes is illegal, as you cannot field a 5-base legion, so the bolt would be added to the unit during PBS as the sixth base.

Rulebook states that darts get a dice downgrade at distances larger than 2BW, which makes them slightly worse than slings (both weapons have the same max range).

Why do darts cost 2pts more than slings for skirmishers? You can find these in North American lists and in Armybuilder.

I don't know any sling-equipped TuGs, but AB has it the other way round for them - slings are 2pts more expensive.

Thank you good Sirs 

So what happens if there is no place for the SuG to run away, e.g. when it is in the side/enemy rear corner?

I don't see much analogy between table edge and friendly units.
Table edge is rather a kind of impassable terrain, but it still doesn't solve the case...

By the way - what happens, when SuG is about to be pushed into impassable terrain?