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 - nikgaukroger

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 206
Just the 1.

Events / Re: 2025-03-01/02 Kent Clash 2025 - Maximus and Magna
« on: July 10, 2024, 08:17:20 AM »
Details updated.

FWIW I've previously allowed a block move from ambush when asked on the basis Matt mentions.

Only happened once that I can recall and obviously is not precedent  8)

The latest episode of The MeG Podcast is now up and available at:


The show notes and related material (and an episode link) is at:


The subject is a bit more specific than usual being based to some degree on a single battle (Brunanburh), however, we hope you'll find it interesting  ;D

As always feedback and suggestions welcome.

Events / Re: 2024-11-30/12-01 Hammer to Hammer RIBBLE RUMBLE
« on: July 08, 2024, 03:54:27 PM »

As this is meant as a knight period troop types defined as Mounted Knight may not dismount. 

You may, therefore, wish to say that if any such knights have Dismountable as a mandatory characteristic that they don't have to take it. There aren't many but it would be a tad unfair to have them pay for something you're not allowing them to use.

Events / Re: 2024-08-09/11 Britcon
« on: July 04, 2024, 07:00:43 PM »
List of entries as of 4/7/24

David Gollop
David Parish
Graham Wilmott
James Carter
James Hamilton
Laurence Donohoe
Malcolm Barnfield
Mark Hargrave
Martin Steenwege
Matthew Haywood
Nicholas Gaukroger
Paul Cummins
Paul O'Brien
peter cross
Peter Entwistle
Philip Powell
Ray Duggins
Richard Baliszewski
Richard Jeffrey-Cook
Robin Spence

Plenty of space for more.


Player Discussion / Questions for The MeG Podcast
« on: July 01, 2024, 03:34:06 PM »
We're doing another podcast recording this week. The topic is (sort of) C10th Anglo-Saxon England at the time of the Battle of Brunnanburh in 937 CE.

So once again we are asking if there are any questions you'd like answered. Can be related to the topic in some way, but we're happy to consider other MeG related questions as well.

List Queries / Re: Late Crusades Clarification
« on: July 01, 2024, 06:19:36 AM »
Best answered will an example I think.

Let us say you choose to take 12 Crossbowmen and replace them with the mixed TUGs - so you have 6 bases of the SSp, XBow, SC and 6 bases of the Xbow. The minimum required bases of Spearmen is now reduced by 6 bases (half the 12 bases in the mixed TUGs) and so is now 6 instead of 12 and likewise the maximum number of Spearmen bases you can take is reduced from 32 to 26.

List Queries / Re: 4515 Yuan Dinasty with Javanese ally 4806
« on: June 28, 2024, 09:56:56 PM »
You are correct.

The Indonesian or Malay list includes the note "An army must be either Javanese, Sumatran or Malay." which combined with the Yuan list calling them "Javanese allies" makes it clear IMO.

Would be useful to know why the list checker thought otherwise in case the descriptions could be made clearer - unless, of course, it was just one of those "oops" moments.

Player Discussion / Re: Lowland Gallic armies
« on: June 26, 2024, 08:11:29 PM »
Well if the organiser is setting the comp up as "biblical" and doesn't include Gauls as allowed then they're not allowed. If they want them to be included they can include them. It's all down to how an individual organiser defines what is allowed.

Simple really.

Player Discussion / Re: Lowland Gallic armies
« on: June 26, 2024, 05:56:03 PM »
You mean like this one in Devizes in a few weeks?


Where they do meet the comp requirements.

Pacto / Re: Prompted Charge against prompted Charge: 2 questions
« on: June 21, 2024, 12:15:56 PM »
It may have been better just to call the classification "Lancers" to avoid a bit of confusion.

Pacto / Re: Prompted Charge against prompted Charge: 2 questions
« on: June 21, 2024, 09:50:13 AM »
I'll answer your second question first, it may well affect how you view whether using cards to prompt the charge was wasting them  :D

If the enemy UG that charges you is infantry then you will get the claim for them not standing to receive a charge by Cv, etc. - check the glossary definition of "Standing to receive" which defines it as not having declared a charge, etc.

You will get the Charging Lancer claim. You do not have to have declared a charge or made a charge move to get the CL claim - it is the same for Devastating Chargers BTW. The classification is just a descriptive one. See page 67 6 E 4. If you are Charging Lancers you will get the claim regardless (unless against standing Pk, etc. of course).

Also, I would always avoid using "cancelled" in relation to charges; whilst a charge may not actually move there is no actual concept of it being cancelled.

Sorry a silly question came up in yesterdays game:
It is true that all cards have to be dealt to the generals exclusively, there's no hand, no reserve for unspent cards.

All cards are indeed dealt to the generals up to their allowed number. Cards not dealt to generals are not used for anything else in a turn - they just sit at the side of the table (or wherever you've put them  :D )

Another question: The Floating Army Commander can gift cards to professional non-allied generals within a 15HBW command range in the subphases when cards are used by generals

Gifting only happens in the Card Phase at the start of each turn (sub-phase 1.3 to be exact). They cannot be gifted after that point - you have to decide then and there.

Pacto / Re: Card upgrade by generals
« on: June 20, 2024, 05:56:46 PM »

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 206