Perhaps it could be included as a optional rule similar to the suggestion for Ambushes and Flank Marches. So you would have the main Pacto version of MeG remaining simplified but with options to include rules have been excluded, such as infantry fallbacks. New players would have a version of Pacto as an entry level to MeG and more experienced players could add optional rules if they wanted. It saves individually 'house ruling' parts players want to add back in.

Thanks Richard.
Simplifying for Pacto makes sense as I guess its designed primarily for new players. We came to it after playing quite a bit of Maximus (in fact MeG since launch) and found that the lack of fallback availability did end up making us more cautious to advance infantry knowing that there was no way back other than turning, which inevitably exposes a flank or rear to the enemy. 

Bill

Is there any reason why M13 moves are not included in Pacto? It does seem particularly harsh on Drilled infantry.

Just wondering what the reason was for leaving out M13 moves from Pacto. Appreciate this is intended to be a quick and simple version of the game but lack of fall back seems particularly harsh on Drilled troops e.g Romans. It can have the effect of making you think twice about advancing!

Thanks, that seems logical. We could not find reference in the rules to double moves only having to stop if they are aware of the enemy - would this then apply to other circumstances where 'on table' units (not in ambush) could not be seen i.e a unit behind a hill or in terrain but not visible. In those circumstances could the player claim their double moving units are not aware of the enemy and therefore continue to make a full double move?

This came up in a game at the weekend. If you have a TUG in ambush and your opponent double move towards the piece of terrain, do they have to stop at the 4BW limit when doing the second move - bearing in mind they still cannot see the ambushing unit at that distance? We wondered whether this double move forces the ambushing player to reveal whether its a bluff or a TUG and/or fully reveal the ambushing unit although its still out of sight.

The thing that made me think twice about how this worked was the use of the phrase 'in the opponents side of the table' rather than 'from the opponents  deployment zone'. This makes a subtle difference for ambushes placed near the table centre line but is clearer for those placed further back. Many thanks for the replies.

The rules state that Ambushes can only be placed where the ambush would not be visible from anywhere in the opponent's half of the table. If I want to place an ambush in a Wood or Forest the terrain chart simply says Troops visible at 2BW or 1 BW respectively. So looking from outside of the terrain piece, does this mean that to be in ambush I must place the card more than 2BW/1BW within the terrain, not on the edge.  Just looking for clarification that this is correct as the visibility rules are slightly short on detail. 

Am just wondering what the rationale is for not allowing Generals to fight in the front rank with Elephants (page 182), particularly for armies where they may have been mounted on Elephants e.g Classical Indian, Khmer etc?

Mortem et Gloriam:
There are 3 of us that play MeG pretty regularly in both in 15mm and 28mm.

Other Games
Many other rule sets and periods are played at the club ranging from ancients to Fantasy/ Sci-Fi. Popular at the moment are Sharp Practice, Wings of Glory, Saga, Vanguard, Blackstone Fortress, Cruel Seas, Armati, Battlegroup, Chain of Command, Napoleonics and SYW.

Dates
Meet generally Thu night 7.30 to 11pm

Northwood Parish Church Hall
Jervis Street
Northwood
Stoke on Trent
ST1 2DU


Members
Around a dozen regular members but can be quite a few more attendees on a club night. New members always welcome.

Contact
Bill Skinner - pm me for more information or visit our website cheshireandstaffordshirewargamers.club

Interesting, will change the dynamic for some charges then as you can't be sure where contact will be made.

Thanks Nick. A further question on point 1. So both units are able to declare shoot and charge. Unit A activates first and shoots and moves into contact with unit B (assuming no slows from unit B). Unit B then is deemed to be charging too, although in this instance has not moved. What happens if unit A is slowed so that no contact is made from its charge, can unit B now move instead so that contact is made?

The slowing effect is deducted from whatever your move is going to be, so it would come off the fallback distance in this case. Similarly if you are moving through terrain any slowing effect comes off the terrain move distance.

A couple of queries came up in a recent game.

1. Two units facing each other, both have Shoot and Charge capability. Unit A declares a charge with shoot and charge on unit B. Can unit B do likewise, in other words both units charging at each other using shoot and charge. The rules seem only to limit the use of shoot and charge for Countercharges and intercepts so we couldn't see why unit B could not do this. Usually there is no advantage to a unit being charged also declaring a charge on the unit charging it, but with shoot and charge I could see it better than standing and shooting. Perhaps it depends on who gets to actually activate the charge first.

2. Does all shooting count as simultaneous when using shoot and charge. For example a mounted unit with Bows and shoot and charge, charges a Javelin armed foot unit from 3BW. The rule implies that shooting is done before the charge move, at which point the defending Javelins cannot shoot as they are out of range. The Javelins can of course shoot as the charge comes within 1 BW but the question is really about timing of any shooting effect on the defending unit and whether any casualties inflicted are taken off before the defending unit can fire as the charging unit is deemed to have shot first.

Thanks