I would like to follow up on this topic:

can you confirm if the same approach applies directly to Magna and Pacto ?

- in Magna, usual TUG size is 4, so skirmishers can charge after TUG loses one base and one wound -it that right ?

- in Pacto, skirmishers can charge a TUG after it loses just one wound - is that right ?

cheers,
KaVoo

great stuff !

for sake of clarity:

Quotep. 119 – SuG may charge TuG w/in one hit of breaking.

- I think it should rather read: 'w/in one base of breaking' (page 119 but also 84))

by the way: I cannot find where there are rules on SUGs catching other SUGs (or TuGs in skirmish mode) which skirmished/routed in the charge phase. does the charging SUG get +4 bonus (for charging in the rear ?) help

QuoteAnd what is a "majority" when there is parity

majority is more than 50 %

Quotedo you test for routing at each phase such as charging, shooting, manoeuvring and melee

- yes, each time UG would be subject to routing. dice roll instead of automatic routing

Quoteit is more testing to do during the game, more testing means it wiull take time and many people dio struggle to end a game in the 3 usual hours of a trounament !

... agreed, you cannot eat and have a cake :/

ROUTING units ...

Although it is not strictly related to the structure of the rulebook, but I found no other place on the forum to share some ideas as to the rules themselves. As Si mentioned earlier

QuoteAs ever keen to learn and develop

I feel encouraged to share some ideas. Maybe the idea is not good, maybe it is something that could be re-thinked for future.

Taking into consideration that those great MeG rules are trying to be historically accurate, use great number of factors as well as chance component, I am still missing this kind of complex approach while deciding in what circumstances a UG is routing. The rules simply assume that TUG breaks while under 50 % and SUG while under 67 %. Needless to say, there were great number of battles in which some units routed earlier than expected, while other performed unexpected last stand irrespective of suffered losses. From my point of view the existing simplified approach is not consistent with the spirit of the game. In reality, poor quality units were much more willing to route if suffer 50 % losses than superior or exceptional units. It also mattered if the unit felt 'safe' (accompanied by friend) or exposed to flank fighting (with rear fighting really frightening) or that soldiers believed they can still face poorer troops or lost hope while confronting X legion ... so why not to simulate a morale factor in such a great game ?
This is why I would really welcome more sophisticated (but still simple and intuitive) rules on deciding if and when UG breaks, especially that the CCC system would make it fast and simple.

I would suggest a system similar to KaB test with some additional factors. The starting point is that each time a UG should break according to the rules it does not break automatically but makes a kind of morale check by rolling a dice. The dice color could be the same as in KaB test, i.e. poor=red, average=yellow, superior=green. exceptional/El=white. Only blank result allows UG to continue fighting in this phase, other results cause routing. The test is repeated in each next phase when UG should be normally subject to routing.
Factors (cumulative) for dice colours (basically generals/quality/losses factors, the factors list could be organized in the same fashion as shooting table):
- general fighting together with UG - one DOWN, C-n-C general - two DOWN
- general fighting with UG is killed/stunned/wounded - one UP, C-n-C general - two UP,
- each quality better than majority of enemy's fighting and supporting files in hth - one DOWN
- each quality worse than majority of enemy's fighting and supporting files in hth - one UP
- both flanks secure (secured from flank charges as in p. 121)- one DOWN
- UG fighting to flank - one UP
- UG fighting to rear- two UP
- another friendly TUG broken within 1 BW - one UP (if SUG tested: two UP or one UP if the other broken unit is SUG)
- SUG in hth with TUG - one UP
- TUG equal or below 30 % of initial bases = two UP
- SUG equal or below 50 % of initial bases = two UP
if above RED - additional red dice for each factor UP, UG routing if at least one result is blank
if below BLACK - additional black dice for each factor DOWN, each blank on one dice negates one S or X on other dice

At first looks complicated but in fact it is intuitive, fast and brings routing of units closer to reality, adding some fun and unpredictability/decision making factor.
It would also make chain-routing less common in pacto. Needs to be checked if would not have adverse effect on points cost attributed to units, possibly a bit lower cost on fanatic units (the proposed system makes units generally a bit more resistant, statistically elite units more resilient than poor).

It is just an idea, make use of it, take some parts or just skip it

cheers, Chris

Simon says:

QuoteFor a block move the entire block becomes a single item for the move

thank you for clarification, this is the precise wording we were starving for

My middle question is answered as well.

I would be grateful for some clues as to my last question, namely:   

QuoteAdditional issue is related to position of SUGs tugged by TUGs while executing M9 and M11 block moves. Lets refer to the diagram on page 108 of the Compendium and assume that there is one SUG ahead of each of the TUG (so 2 SUGs in total). Where the SUGs can be placed after the M11 block move is performed as in the diagram ? Anywhere in contact with a TUG ?
What would be the rule in case there are not 2 but 3 or 4 TUGs (each with a SUG ahead, assume TUGs being cavalry or fleet of foot) executing the M11 block move as in the diagram ?

cheers, Chris

LawrenceG thank you for input, but my questions were related not to the speed of each UG during the block move but rather if UGs must remain in touch at the end of the block move. And some other related issues.
Those issues remain still not clarified.

Chris

I would like to ask for clarification of what seems to be conflicting rules relating to block moves.

According to the Compendium:
"No files in the block may move further than their maximum move distance, and all
TuGs follow the same action, limited by the speed of the slowest if the move keeps
them in the same block throughout. In most cases this is obvious but for some moves
it takes a bit of thought"

According to Si's tutorial https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_orIK4yRFg the block is fragmented at the end of the 'block move'.
In this topic https://mortem-et-gloriam.co.uk/smf/index.php?topic=1775.0 Steads admitted that 'Si has done that to him' 

I am not a native English speaker but some of those guys here https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/throughout probably are and according to them 'throughout' means 'in every part, or during the whole period of time', which in result leads me to a conclusion that all UGs performing a block move must be also at least in partial contact at the end of the move. Or perhaps I misunderstood the whole sentence from the Compendium which I marked above.

In case it is ruled that UGs do not have to be in a contact at the end of a block move please confirm what is situation while performing M14 double move, i.e. if UGs must be in contact only at the beginning of the whole M14 or they must also be in contact at the beginning of the second 'consecutive' green/white move ?


Additional issue is related to position of SUGs tugged by TUGs while executing M9 and M11 block moves. Lets refer to the diagram on page 108 of the Compendium and assume that there is one SUG ahead of each of the TUG (so 2 SUGs in total). Where the SUGs can be placed after the M11 block move is performed as in the diagram ? Anywhere in contact with a TUG ?
What would be the rule in case there are not 2 but 3 or 4 TUGs (each with a SUG ahead, assume TUGs being cavalry or fleet of foot) executing the M11 block move as in the diagram ?


Cheers, Chris