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.

Topics - LawrenceG

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
Rules Queries and Clarifications / MF1 question
« on: April 04, 2024, 04:48:25 PM »
TUG X is fighting TUG V. Both are facing down the page, so X is in contact with V's rear. Only 1 base is in contact.


Can X do an MF1 to put another base in combat?


pdf 7.D.3. Shooting files must target the nearest base in the target file. As a result, they will generally
shoot at the front file unless they are shooting at them from behind their flank or rear. If
nearest base is not a valid target, for instance if it is engaged in combat, then the file may
not be targeted.

There are situations where a file can have bases within firing arc, but the nearest base is out of arc.

Also situations where a base within 1 base-width directly in front covers most of the shooter's front, but another base is the nearest base.

Shooting is not allowed in either of these cases. Was that intended?

Clarity and consistency issues around evading and shooting or not shooting.

Mainly with the aim of improving the rule wording next time it is updated, but there are a couple of items that would benefit from a response.

I'm using the term “evade” as shorthand for “run away or skirmish”.

rule references from pdf.


1. A run away move is a charge response where troops make a fleeting shot and move away
from chargers as far as possible. A skirmish move is a charge response by an UG where the
troops sacrifice some move distance to pour as much fire as possible onto charging troops.
Some troops must make a run away or skirmish response because they are not strong enough
to stand to face a charge. Others are allowed to run away or skirmish but do not have to do
so. These take place at SP2.5, i.e. before charges are moved.

1.1. SuGs (or flexibles in skirmish form) charged by TuGs must run away or skirmish unless:

2.1. A run away response represents taking a quick fleeting shot and running away as
quickly, and as far, as possible.
2.2. A skirmish response represents dropping back more gradually while attempting to
maximise firing on chargers, so there is a 2BW reduction in maximum distance moved.

3.1. For each UG, before making any moves, first roll for any shooting effect using the
shooting mechanism. Files shoot if their target’s path of charge is ahead of them (i.e.,
in front of the line extending the front edge of the file shooting) and within 1 BW (see

3.4. Move troops to their new position with them ending:
3.4.1. Facing away from the charge if making a run away.
* If charged frontally: after completing the run away move, turn 180o if needed
to face away from the charger.
* If charged in flank/rear: after completing the run away move, turn 90o or
180o to face away from the charger.
* If charged by more than one UG, the owning player chooses which UG to
face away from.
3.4.2. Facing towards the charge if a skirmish response.
* If charged frontally: after completing the skirmish move, turn 180o if needed
to face towards the charger.
* If charged in flank/rear: after completing the skirmish move, turn 90o or 180o
to face towards the charger. If you choose to skirmish when charged only in
flank or rear your shooting is deemed ineffective and you roll no shooting
dice, but it does at least turn you around to face them. The UG counts as
having shot and so cannot shoot in the shooting phase.
* If charged by more than one UG, the owning player chooses which UG to
face towards.
3.4.3. Both cases are still considered to have done a shooting action and cannot
shoot later in the shooting phase – you tried to shoot at them but did minimal

7.C.5 . Troops are not forced to shoot, they may choose not to (which may be beneficial if an enemy hesitant ally is in range, or if you are hiding in ambush).

8.D.9 If any unbroken enemy are met, they may run away or skirmish as if charged, but do not shoot (we consider there has been a mass of friends running towards them). TuGs that cannot run away or skirmish stand to receive.

Discussion points:

5.L.1.1 (because e.g. long spear flex cavalry in skirmish can do it) and 8.D.9 (explicit) imply that shooting is not an integral part of evading.

5.L.1 , 5.L.2.1 and 5.L.2.2 imply that shooting is an integral part of evading.

Contradictory rules, although it's pretty clear which one must apply. De facto: skirmish is retreat and rally, run away is run away. Both may also involve shooting.

7.C.5 Gives you the option of not shooting in the shooting phase, but there is no such option in the charge phase. Note that this also applies to UGs that do not evade.

Inconsistent, although it might be intended. If intended, why?

“There they are, sitting ducks” … “No, don't shoot, we don't want to give our position away”
“They are charging, we need to get away as fast as possible” … “No, let's stand here and shoot at them for a while first.”

5.L.3.1 gives criteria for determining whether files shoot or not. This establishes that there are files that shoot and there are files that don't shoot. Not files that shoot but with no effect. 

5.L.3.4.1 does not prevent troops that run away from shooting at flank or rear chargers (it is unlikely they would meet the criteria of 3.1, but it is possible). It also does not say they count as having shot when they don't meet the criteria for shooting.

5.L.3.4.2 has “If you choose to skirmish when charged only in flank or rear your shooting is deemed ineffective and you roll no shooting dice, ... The UG counts as having shot and so cannot shoot in the shooting phase.”

5.L.3.4.3 has “Both cases are still considered to have done a shooting action and cannot shoot later in the shooting phase – you tried to shoot at them but did minimal damage.”

Slightly different wording and I suspect the wording in 3.4.2 was accidentally not deleted in an edit when 3.4.3 was added (so this could potentially be added to the errata). However, either way, there is a lack of clarity.

Is it:

Rule:  The UG counts as having shot
Observation: and one of the implications of this is it cannot shoot later in the shooting phase
(another implication (not stated) is the combat claim vs non charging cavalry that shot).


Rule: The UG cannot shoot later in the shooting phase
Rationalisation: you tried to shoot in the charge response but did minimal damage.

I note that 7.C.4 also prevents you from shooting in the shooting phase if you evaded (and that is the most logical place for the rule), but there's nothing wrong with a bit of redundancy in restating it in section 5.

Further lack of clarity if the first one is intended: Does a flex TUG in skirmish with no missile weapon count as having shot (i.e. is the intention (in game-effect terms) that the act of evading triggers the +1 opponent claim, or only evading by missile-focussed units) ?

Consistency question that follows if the second is intended: If a path of charge passes within 1 BW of a non-evading UG but not ahead of it, why wouldn't it also try to shoot but do minimal damage, hence losing the ability to shoot in the shooting phase? [I assume the answer is "because that gives the right game effect"].

Another lack of clarity in 5.L.3.4.3:   “Both cases ...”. 
OK, but which “Both cases” ? Both flank and rear charge? Both skirmish and run away? Both frontal charge and flank/rear charge ? The comment “you tried to shoot at them but did minimal damage” suggests it means “Both flank and rear charge” and only when skirmishing, as those are the only cases where shooting is described as occurring, but ineffective.

8.D.9   is obviously intended as an exception to 5.L.3.1  to prevent you shooting when you meet the normal criteria for shooting. Is it also intended as an exception to the "counts as having shot" rule? If not, would the "cavalry that shot" claim apply when the combat is fought in the charge phase of the next turn?

Rules Queries and Clarifications / SUGS charging camps.
« on: January 29, 2024, 08:06:55 AM »
A camp is not a TUG but is treated as a TUG for combat.

pdf 6.M.2 "A fortified camp may only be attacked by infantry or elephants; other camps can be attacked
by any enemy, including skirmishers."

So skirmishers can attack camps, but is this ability to attack limited by the restriction on SUGS charging TUGS (i.e. only when nearly broken)?

Can infantry skirmishers attack fortified camps? Looks like they can, but not entirely clear because the "including skirmishers" is omitted.

Rules Queries and Clarifications / Can you discard in the charge phase?
« on: January 27, 2024, 09:04:20 AM »
According to my opponent, it is generally accepted in Australia that you cannot discard in the charge declaration subphase, because 5.A.2 only mentions declaring or stopping a charge, or passing.

I note that 1.A.6 says you can discard in any subphase involving card play.

Which one applies and why?

List Queries / 4203 Middle Warring States Wuqiujiu - clubmen
« on: January 09, 2024, 09:07:57 AM »
A bit late now, but ...

I was converting over some armies to the new lists and I noticed that the Wuqiujiu - clubmen are unprotected melee expert.

The DBMM army lists describe these thus:

The small state of Chungshan had troops alled wu-ch ' iu-chiu in iron armour wielding iron clubs "whatever they hit they smashed and wherever they went they met no resistance".

Unfortunately they don't give the source.

"iron armour" sounds like it should be at least protected and "whatever they hit they smashed" sounds more like 2HCC than melee expert.

Also if they were intended to compensate for lack of chariots by taking on enemy shooty chariots, protected 2HCC would make more sense than unprotected melee expert (vulnerable to shooting and no special anti-mounted capability). Even being superior they are worse against mounted than the normal average protected long spear infantry, and only marginally better against LSp infantry.

Is there other evidence that they were vulnerable to missiles and not that great in melee?


6.C.5 says "Front rank bases in contact with an enemy flank but not as a valid flank charge may ignore the 1BW restriction to align with the front edge of the file contacted if all other restrictions are obeyed."

6.C.8 says "Side edge contacts that were frontal charges may only align into frontal supporting file positions, not flank positions." Only frontal supporting file positions implies the front edge of the file cannot be aligned to.

Probably the intention is both kinds of frontal position are allowed, so it would be worth tidying this up at some point.

Rules Queries and Clarifications / Errata - flex TUG in skirmish shooting.
« on: December 07, 2023, 12:36:51 AM »
We have an errata entry for 3.B.6 TUG in skirmish shoots at full effect in 2 ranks.

But no entry for the table at 7.E.1 which still has 3 ranks needed.

Will an updated pdf be issued in the new year incorporating all errata, or just an update to the errata?

Historical Notes / Probable typo in Medieval Scottish 5410
« on: December 03, 2023, 11:26:22 PM »
Judging by the dates in the battle list, historical note

"The first half of the 15th century saw the fight for Scottish independence."

should be

"The first half of the 14th century saw the fight for Scottish independence."

Historical Notes / General comment on historical notes
« on: December 03, 2023, 11:23:54 PM »
My feeling is that king lists and lists of battles/campaigns that don't say who they were against, or who won, is not as interesting or as good a use of the space/effort as expanding the general notes with events/anecdotes/characters that add flavour and, especially, sources (both primary and easily accessible modern). Perhaps also reference to modern literature/pop culture set in the period.

Surely some fan of the Medieval English can do better than:
"This list covers English armies in Britain from 1320 until the start of the Wars of the Roses."

List Queries / Re: Points Systems
« on: November 14, 2023, 10:24:34 AM »
If the points system is balanced, then "nerfing" troops will be neutral regarding overall army effectiveness. It just means a change in tactics might be needed.

Rules Queries and Clarifications / pursuit direction and restraining
« on: November 10, 2023, 01:24:31 PM »
We had an instance where TuG A charged TuG B contacting the flank of one of its bases, but not qualifying as a flank charge.
In fact 1 base of A contacted the front corner of B's front rank base and another base of A contacted the flank edge of B's second rank base.

TuG A broke in melee and after casualty removal, the only base remaining was the one contacting B's flank. This base routed to its rear, which was about 45 degrees to B's facing.

Which direction does B pursue in?  To its front, to its flank, or in the direction of the rout, or not at all?

Second question, not relating to this incident:

F1 can be combined in the same turn with:

(from pdf 2.I)
Charge  - yes
Countercharge or intercept - not clear, has this uG charged or not?
C3 stop a forced charge - probably no as it is a prompted action but clearly not a charge and the only combination explicitly allowed is combining with a move. Or is controlling pursuit a "move"?
MF1 and MF 2 - yes
M9 to initiate a melee from a flank edge to flank edge contact  - no. Was that intended?

Player Discussion / Colour blindness
« on: October 31, 2023, 04:23:53 PM »
I know someone who is colour blind, so he can't play MeG

The cards do have numbers on IIRC, but the prompted action table and the dice are still problematic.

To mitigate this I have a couple of suggestions that shouldn't be that difficult to implement:

1. Print the colour words in black on the coloured cells in the prompted action table.
2. For the standard green dice, colour the symbols white (same as the black dice) instead of black.

Not sure if that would be a complete solution (might need some market research), but it would certainly help.

Rules Queries and Clarifications / Chasing evaders
« on: October 30, 2023, 09:39:20 AM »
pdf 5.N.3.1

As written, this rule does not constrain players on how much they can wheel, as long as the result is catching the target, or attempting to catch it.

I had it ruled at Derventio that you can only make the minimum necessary wheel to catch it ( if you can't catch it, I assume the ruling would have been the minimum necessary to attempt to catch it).

Should this be in the errata?

To go with this, it might be useful to have a definition of what qualifies as an "attempt", although I suspect it's a case of "hard to define, but you know one when you see one". It might make more sense to allow any wheel up to a maximum beyond which your "attempt" starts giving worse results. 

List Queries / Ancient Spanish infantry
« on: October 30, 2023, 08:50:05 AM »
I note that Spanish infantry in the Spanish list are Ex Javelin,-, ME,
but Spanish mercenaries in the Syracusan list are -,Impact weapon, -.

Curious about the reason for this difference.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5