You are right. That was pretty much it. He claimed a flank attack bonus and I wasn't allowed my short spears.

Why does the flank protection think like in the diagram on p62 not apply? Also explained on p60 in 5.1.3.2

The contact was caused just on a side edge by a wheel in a charge but Philip Powell told me that it meant he got +4 against the unit he contacted in the side and that my element dead in front only counted as an overlap against the element next to it that had contacted diagonally next to it.

Just a question. At the comp in Devizes I found out that if you have a enemy TUG directly in front of you within 1 BW but another TUG slightly stepped in front of it, but in line,  so that you are a bit behind its flank you can charge diagonally do as to have 1 element contact the flank of one unit a bit and then contact the unit in front of you diagonally as well. This then means that one of the elements from the unit directly in front ends up not contacted at all. I would have thought that you were supposed to charge the unit directly in front as this seems like one of the weird alignment things that MEG was supposed to avoid. Is this deliberate or an oversight and if it is deliberate why?

Quote from: tarnowski1 on November 22, 2023, 09:18:46 AM

1- A

2- digital rules p13 '1.1. A deep water is placed by the defender on a side table edge up to 6BW into the table. It
can be declared as zero depth so the table edge is the waterline and is treated as deep
water for all purposes.'

3- thats kind of a when is a hill not a hill question? you and your opponent need to agree the terms of what is defined as uphill and where it blocks line of sight etc . Simple answer is they need to mark a ridge line or its counts as all points rise to the centre point of the terrain 'square.'

1. So my point is the rules need to say it is a square otherwise some people will say it isn't.

2. So that is the writer's intention. OK but don't know why they wanted to say that a mountains and forests narrow the battlefield but water doesn't but it seems that's what they wanted.

3. My point. It should be marked.

Quote from: ShrubMiK on November 22, 2023, 09:24:17 AM
1. "10 BW x 10BW" clearly (to me, anyway) implies a rectangular shape. I agree it could be more specific, but it seems perverse to interpret it is referring to a circle!

3. Agree beforehand is definitely recommended. Or you run the risk of coming up against a player who insists, mid tournament game in a critical combat, that if the hill is represented in stepped fashion, your unit can only claim uphill bonus if the line of fighting is precisely on a step boundary. Grrr.

1. Seems so to me too but a clear statement seems to be required so that everyone is playing it the same. The rule implies but does not say it means a square so some people will interpret it differently.

3, The problem with this agreement thing is it is too vague. If it isn't drawn on then where exactly is it? Also if your opponent won't agree that the shape has to  be possible in geometry you end up having to get the umpire. It also ends up with you having to say after each move - so do you agree that this is above that.

Is there any chance that we could have (or do we already have but I can't find?) an official clarification on what is meant in the rules for terrain sizes. This is because I have experienced completely different interpretations at different competitions.
1. The rules say p14'Compulsory items must cover at least 6 BW x 6 BW and fit within 10 BW x 10 BW'. Does this mean that the largest possible piece is (A) a square 10 BW x 10 BW or that (B) it can't be more than 10 BW across which would mean that the largest possible piece is a circle with diameter 10 BW? For this one I thought it was (A) - it was ruled at a comp that it was (B) - I cut down all my terrain to match - then at last comp is was (A).....
2. For secure flanks on p13 - if you are not using deep water there is a minimum size (6 BW x 6BW) but there is no minimum size listed for deep water. This means that you can have a waterway that is 1mm wide or in fact so small as to be invisible! I can see that is how the RAW works but was that the intention when it was written?
3. Flat hills and mountains - a lot of people use square or rectangles of flat material to be hills and mountains to avoid the bases sliding off and to make positions clear - I'm not one of them - my hills are hills - but I understand why this may be a good idea. For these would it be possible to have some rules about what they look like it terms of defining ridge lines?  To me these either need a mark for a point which is the peak and then whichever unit is closer to that point is higher (so it evenly slopes to that point), or it needs a point and lines going to the corners so that it is a pyramid, or a shape on top which is flat and everything slopes to that shape, or a ridge line on top and lines to the corner - or whatever you want really as long as it is clear. At the moment when you just get an unmarked square on the table who knows what it means? If you define it in discussion it is usually unclear where exactly all the slopes are. At the last comp I was faced with a mountain in my deployment area which supposedly had a ridge straight down the middle at right angles to my base edge and no other slopes so that none of my troops - when facing enemy - counted as up hill! So it was shaped like a ridge tent except with no slope at all at the ends and no cliffs - so an impossible shape.

The Syria and Asia Minor says: Armenian; Cappadocian; Early Seleucid; Late Seleucid; Pontic; Galatian; Palmyran. Does that mean I can't use Attalid Pergamene allies?

I have that document yes. I don't think it makes any suggestion that it was just the quarubuti sha pithalli who gained horse armour though. If you look at reliefs like Til Tuba all the cavalry have horse armour. As far as I know if some didn't they aren't depicted anywhere. Given the rather arbitrary nature of the MeG armour classifications all this tells us really is that all the cavalry should probably be classed the same and have the same formation. We have no reason to think that the guards had a different formation to the others. I would probably so they all should either be Protected or Protected/Armoured Horse without the distinction between guards and others.

I see how it may make sense in a wargaming/rules kind of way - but surely its supposed to have some basis in history? I may just not upgrade them I guess - all my Assyrian cavalry are the same - they all have the horse armour - so working out which are supposed to armoured horse and which aren't isn't going to be obvious......

I am sorting these out to use for MEG (I have an army that was for WRG 7th and then DBM and DBMM) - and then noticed the MEG list has a really drastic change to the cavalry. First it is only the Qurubuti sha pithalli who get armoured horses and the previous armoured cavalry are retained after 668 BCE and that when upgraded they become close order! Any idea why? I haven't seen any reliefs showing cavalry without horse armour after this date - have I missed something? Secondly have we any reason to think that they started forming up in close order? This isn't the kind of detail we have available to us as far as I know. So from a historical basis I'm not sure why the list would contain such a drastic (and compulsory) change from previous lists. From a wargaming point of view I hesitate to not use all the cavalry I already have or try rebase some of them fitting 4 on a base. Any ideas?

I think this goes back to the WRG lists for DBM and 7th most likely. The list in DBMM runs from 592 BC to 350 AD. The list description seems to match that pretty much. The troop types are also probably from there. The WRG Kushite Egyptian list runs until 593 BC. So they have the abrupt transition but without the gap! The 593 BC date is the move of the capitol from Napata to Meroe though why that would involve a drastic military reorganisation I don't know. Herodotus doesn't say what the army was like that faced the Persians under Cambyses so all that we can say is that was closer in time to the one faced by the Assyrians than the one described by Strabo. The Assyrian reliefs depict some Kushite soldiers though they suffer from the standard problem of the Assyrians depicting all of their enemies as rather badly armed, even if they probably weren't, for propaganda reason (e.g. Elamites, Babylonians). it could be argued that the Kushites wore rather a lot of armour as the Assyrians at least depict them with some armour unlike their other enemies who are shown with none. Taharqa's archers are shown with lamellar jackets which is extremely unusual for enemies of Assyria! We also know from archaeology that they did a lot of iron working Meroë.

Hi was thinking about trying to get my Kushites useable later in history (when a lot of the comps seem to be set). Looking at the list the Kushite Egyptian list ends in 656 BC and the Meriotic list starts in 592 BC. After this gap the Kushites have lost most of their troops types - all the chariots, 14 cavalry, 18 skirmishing bow, all the slingers and javs. They have 'gained' a large mass of close order unprotected short spear. Beyond a bit of vague description in Strabo about 25 BC and few bit of fairly uninformative art there is no evidence at all for this that I know of. It would be nice if the later list was a bit more flexible - currently it would require me to paint 63 bases of rubbish spear which I don't think anyone actually makes so I'd have to use some kind of stand ins! Any chance there could be at least some kind of transition where maybe the chariots go? Is there any reason to think that they stopped having any cavalry other than Strabo not really mentioning any in 25 BC? Lots of other lists where we don't know much seem to get the benefit of the doubt.