Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Plantagenet

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
Rules Queries and Clarifications / Re: Devastating charges
« on: July 30, 2022, 03:34:27 AM »
1 rank deep gives a +0 claim  8)

You mean like he already said 3 posts above yours  ::)

Player Discussion / Re: rulebook digital version
« on: July 29, 2022, 12:45:59 AM »
Digital version would nice. Then if people want a hard copy they can indie print. Worked well for ReG

PSC is interested now is a question of : do people want it ? if yes you can tell them or tell Simon who is PSC

Simon is most definitely NOT PSC, just as Warwick Kinrade (who's rules they also publish and sell) is also not PSC.  Simon has a business arrangement with PSC regarding the sale / distribution of MeG related goods but PSC is PSC.  It's a bit like saying that the guy that supplies the buns to Burger King is Burger King, clearly he's not.

Player Discussion / Re: Rule book structure comments
« on: October 24, 2021, 07:12:15 AM »
Agree totally with the comments posted by Francis.  Plus, include ALL the ACTUAL terrain sizes for each of the game sizes in the book rather than have to flick through the book to find only the 10BW x 10BW size being mentioned, then to go to the terrain QRS to find it only then to be told you have divide the terrain sizes by 2/3 and round up for Magna.  Far better to have all the actual terrain sizes in the book.  The QRS should be a summary of what's in the rule book, not a replacement for it.

Rules Queries and Clarifications / Item for Errata?
« on: October 23, 2021, 02:50:24 AM »
Unless I'm mistaken there seems to be a typo in the bottom diagram p.140 (Dice to Roll).  The top left text box within that diagram, pertaining to the Roman TUG, under Melee lists the Foot Melee Expert claim as +2, not +1.  Very confusing trying to fathom why the dice rolled are different colours when the claims (as written) are exactly the same.

Player Discussion / Re: Basic Combats - Dice to Roll (Diagram p.140)?
« on: October 21, 2021, 02:52:51 PM »
Yeah I figured that the most likely reason was a typo in the example with the +2 for Foot Melee Expert that should be a +1.  Had me scratching my head for a while though.  Great having diagrams to aid understanding, would help much more if they were accurate though  ::)  Would even help if the typo had made it to the FAQ / Errata, the rules have been out a while now.

Player Discussion / Basic Combats - Dice to Roll (Diagram p.140)?
« on: October 21, 2021, 06:37:01 AM »
Spent a while trying to fathom this diagram and just want to clarify whether my understanding is wrong or if the wording in the diagram at the bottom of page 140 is wrong / confusing.  In the top left box within the diagram concerning the Roman TUG's factors it says:

Charge Combat
General: +1 for better quality / Preferred: +2 for Impact Weapon. 

General: +1 for better quality / Preferred: +2 for Foot Melee Expert.

As it's written the claims seem to be EXACTLY the same in both phases so I couldn't fathom why for the Charge phase the Romans are YELLOW vs Hoplites WHITE and yet for Melee it's GREEN vs WHITE?

Checking against the QRS though, and IF I've got it right, the Foot Melee Expert claim in the Melee phase should actually be +1 and the +2 as listed would in this instance be a cumulative figure for both the General and Preferred claims taken together.  It thus seems that the examples have switched between listing single factors in the Charge phase with a +1 AND a +2 for a cumulative (the information that's missing?) +3 giving them a net +2 advantage after taking into account the Hoplites +1, giving the Romans a YELLOW vs WHITE.

In the Melee phase however, from the QRS is seems that the Roman claims should be +1 for better quality AND +1 for Melee Expert for a cumulative of +2.  So in this case the +2 is the cumulative of the two +1s whereas in the Charge phase they are two separate factors with the cumulative missing, despite being written exactly the same way?  Thus in the Melee Phase it's actually Romans a total +2 vs Hoplites +1 for a net +1 to the Romans and therefore GREEN vs WHITE.

Is this right (and the top left box is wrong / confusing) or have I got it totally wrong?  If I'm right I presume the +2 Foot Melee Expert is merely a typo and should be +1.

Rules Queries and Clarifications / Re: Mixed Tug movement
« on: October 19, 2021, 03:24:09 AM »
I guess it must be in specific lists where there is any benefit to swapping the ranks around vs say a crusader mixed spear / crossbow formation which, unless I've misunderstood, would get no benefit whatsoever given the front rank of spears / crossbow shoot at full capacity as crossbows and fight at full capacity as spears depending on what they are doing. In this case it seems like the rear rank of crossbows is really only the unit marker so the mixed formation is visibly different to the non-mixed spear / crossbow units.

I think it might be possible with a combination of expansions / contractions but, while I haven't sat down and worked it through, I think it would take take way too many orders and way too much time and you really couldn't afford to be pulling blacks in any numbers at all across all the generals I think.

Some list are very specific on generals.
I recall that the Swiss couldn’t take legendary for instance.
Some other list create constraints : for Alexander Macedonian if you want the agema then you need Alexander as CiC, Alexander is graded legendary.
I recall there were discussions so have a close look when list are re-edited.
Otherwise you take the general grade you like (or the one you can afford once you paid for the rest of the army)

Right, I haven't looked at the lists in question TBH but guessed there may be one or more factors that might force the use of the Legendary general, at least in some cases, otherwise people might just drop Alexander for Colin.  In the games we've played I always go for the command and control levels I need, cheaping out on generals is too much of a risk for me, unless they are literally needed to do nothing.

Well, the only mistake here is the assumption you jumped to about there being some confusion as to what might constitute a legendary general for who.  I don't actually see that anywhere in the question, probably because that wasn't the question at all. The question WAS, is it a player choice to take a Legendary General or not? it was a simple RULES question, nothing more.  Attention to detail and all that ;)

Anyway, thanks for the first two words of the answer that were useful.  As to the rest of the diatribe, probably better to be certain what people are confused about before offering the benefit of your wisdom.  Most people I know don't actually like being told what they are thinking by others.

Very brief discussion over a game at the weekend.  If a player is using an army that doe not have a Legendary commander identified within the list, such as Alexander, can the player still choose to take one subject to paying the correct points?  For some reason I got it into my head that the ONLY time a Legendary commander can be taken is where mentioned in specific lists.  We came to the conclusion that it is indeed a player option to take a legendary commander and that the specified named commanders are instances where if that commander is taken he must be Legendary.

Rules Queries and Clarifications / Re: Distances
« on: October 18, 2021, 03:37:53 AM »
Might be having moment hear but the following I don't get:

"So - routs, units within 3BW DO have to take KaB tests.  This includes units exactly at 3BW. 
This means that if you have a line of 3 TuGs, each 3BW apart, and the TuG on the left routs, both the TuG in the centre and on the right must take a KaB test for seeing the TuG rout."

Surely if the line of tugs are 3BW APART that would be one TUG, then 3 BW gap, then the centre TUG then 3 BW and then the last TUG.  That would mean the two gaps alone would be 6BW.  I'm assuming it means, if you have three TUGS in a line, each TUG having front rank of 3 BW.  That way it would be 'at 3BW' line where the final TUG meets the right of the middle TUG?

Player Discussion / Re: Using Mixed Formations?
« on: October 18, 2021, 03:05:34 AM »
Thanks.  Found the section E2.  Not trying to overthink it to be honest. The rules provide the option to used a Mixed Formation with a spear armed base in front and crossbow armed base in the rear.  That is distinctly different to a file of troops equipped in the same manner.  Thus it's not unreasonable to suspect that there MAY be some impact on how how the mixed formation performs when either fighting or firing. It seems that there isn't but dome mention of that might be useful in the rules even if it's merely to note there's no difference whatsoever, rather than leaving it down to guesswork. Clarity is useful at times.

Player Discussion / Using Mixed Formations?
« on: October 16, 2021, 03:47:48 AM »
I might have missed something here but is there anywhere in the rule book that describes HOW mixed formations work as opposed to merely describing what units might be in them (e.g. what they LOOK like) and how great MeG is at representing such formations?  Can't find anything in the book using either the book index or the excellent index RJC did. 

If using a mixed formation of spears and crossbows, I'm looking for answers to queries like:

The spear are in the front rank.  If shooting, do they shoot at full effect?

When fighting, do they fight as spear at full effect?

Is there ever a need to be switching the ranks to put the Xbow in the front or is it the case there's no need to because they are just a unit that is always represented with spear in the front and xbow in the rear.  Been tempted to try them out a few times but never been able to find how they are used which leaves it to guess work. Maybe it's there and I just can't see for looking but some examples might have been helpful, or even a brief entry to indicate HOW they function.

Been pondering how this might be done using MEG such as to represent (as close as possible) the deployment of knights behind a friendly spear or spear/xbow mixed screen as opposed to the more classical ancients deployments with cavalry wings on the flanks.  Given that interpenetration is not possible, other than where SUGs are involved etc., the main difficulty I could see would be the cavalry getting stuck behind the infantry lines if it's not played very carefully.

One option I suppose would be a solid line with foot alternating with cavalry or in whatever combination one wanted so:

F  C  F  C  F  C  F

Has the advantage of there being no exposed flanks within the line and the cavalry being able to get out from the infantry lines but command and control could be an issue with care needing to be taken that all the cavalry are in command range so that they move when you need.  It would also likely be a very long battle line.

As far as I can see, that's about the only option, other than say a variant of it with the cavalry stepped back from the infantry such that they form a ZOC protecting the otherwise exposed flanks of the infantry but are still able to get out and won't be contacted if the infantry are.  It's still a very long line though.

F      F     F     F
    C     C    C

Still reading through the rules as it's been maybe 2 years since we played last so it's almost like starting afresh.  Meanwhile I'm trying to think if I've missed any other ways of doing it, such as a long line of infantry with maybe two centre UGs contracting or otherwise getting out of the way to let cavalry pass.  Each time I ponder tactics like that though I just think of how quickly troops, especially cavalry, can actually get into contact, maybe two turns max, such that I think any manoeuvres like that would be way to time (and card!) consuming to pull off before the enemy was on you.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6