Oh, that section...
Wondered what that was for. 

Quote from: mad lemmey on August 21, 2019, 10:25:21 AM
Oh, that section...
Wondered what that was for. 

QED Nik!!

I would just adjust the section on allies at the front of each pdf. Otherwise it would take ages for somebody to change every list.

Quote from: rayfredjohn on August 18, 2019, 05:15:27 PM

Quote from: craig.w on August 18, 2019, 04:49:17 PM
The changes to prompting through fire - this seems to be aimed at knight Vs horse archers (which I think is a bit of a problem now) but won't this also make foot even worse against horse archers ( hello FoG).

This was my feedback

The Issue with FoG was the speed being so slow and the car so manouvrable.  I have never felt HA could handle big foot armies in Mortem et Gloriam as they just can't cause casualties fast enough.  Might have a chance now.  The ey will be how well the foot general manages their cards to prompt through fire.

Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 12, 2019, 04:49:32 PM


PBS
1. First card/disc is played to see who chooses which of the defenders territory type is to be used.  So you can play a RED to try to get this.  Represents invader picking which bit to attack.
2. Professional armies get 7/6/5/4 for AC grade, Instinctive 5/4/3/2 with scouting included as today.  No benefit for Subs.  Simpler and more balanced advantage for Professionals. Points adjusted up 100 for instinctive generals as Pro one slose their boost for PBS.

1. what if both play red? will people not try to always play red? it will advantage the pro-gen a lot as he has more cards
2. i do not see why pro gets worse off to justify instinctive's points to go up

Quote from: Jilu on August 30, 2019, 04:38:19 AM

Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 12, 2019, 04:49:32 PM


PBS
1. First card/disc is played to see who chooses which of the defenders territory type is to be used.  So you can play a RED to try to get this.  Represents invader picking which bit to attack.
2. Professional armies get 7/6/5/4 for AC grade, Instinctive 5/4/3/2 with scouting included as today.  No benefit for Subs.  Simpler and more balanced advantage for Professionals. Points adjusted up 100 for instinctive generals as Pro one slose their boost for PBS.

1. what if both play red? will people not try to always play red? it will advantage the pro-gen a lot as he has more cards

I believe that in the case of a draw Defender will choose.

Quote2. i do not see why pro gets worse off to justify instinctive's points to go up

Logic goes something like - as professional generals loose the PBS boost the points difference between Professional and Instinctive should be narrower, also it was felt that Insinctive generals were a bit too cheap currently so to tackle both of these Instinctive generals go up 100 points.

The professional have advantages both for PBS and during the whole game as the cic can give cards all around.

On another topic I hope décision to be taken soon on all pending subject (rule / list / budget as all 3 are being discussed)
Our club reopen tonight, the general feeling so far is that the rule is nice but utterly unstable.
Right now it is extremely complicate to form new players to MEG as there are bit and pieces of the rule scattered all around.
We have 2 coming events in France, one in October and one in November both close to paris.
It will be the very moments when we will ever recruit or loose our player pool.

Sharing ideas is good but taking position and sticking to the direction is what is needed today.

Simon has stated his timetable for the 2020 update, after that all should be nice and stable.

Then let's hope the « market reality «  wait for him...

Quote from: Rino on August 30, 2019, 09:30:27 AM
Then let's hope the « market reality «  wait for him...

What do you mean? Are players leaving MeG ahead of the update?

We lost already 3 players at our club over the last months and 2 more are balancing as every time they play the rules are different...
Many of the FOG players that were prime targets at the launch of MEG have been lost trough the years as they also grew tired of beta testing.

Interesting.  And a real shame if true.
We haven't had the same feeling in the UK so much.
Perhaps it is the language.

Or perhaps there is less change language used in the UK.
It's not been beta-testing.  That is very very much more variable than this.
I wouldn't feel at all comfortable hearing the Mortem et Gloriam optimisation process described that way.
It is something we all need to stop if it happens.

Even the grand total changes from launch is a pretty short list. Most of the rest is clarries.
Its actually a shorter list than the amendment sheet for many rules.
No set of rule has EVER been OPTIMISED in such a short time.
FoG never has been. ADLG not. DBM not.

The other question is that it was deliberately written in an easier style to avoid heavy language with then detailed calories on the website.
Perhaps this is not such a good idea.

Anyway once it is published in book form it is static.
This will be early part of next year as a book.
Final tweaks will be out in December.

Would like to understand all this better please.

S

As a general guide when asked about this I find the best answer is this:

The big plus is that Simon and the team listen and tweak rules and points to respond to players ideas and issues.
As a result it has really optimised the game and points making it the most characterful and well balanced ancients game ever.
The tweaks are all pretty minor and the core of the rules has been stable from the outset.
No other ruleset has been so responsive or so optimised.
So you basically have to decide whether to stick with the flaws in games or allow this to happen and enjoy the end result.

That said it was an exercise of faith to do this.
So am open to the idea that having it more rigid with flaws would have been better.
I just don't personally feel that way.  Thoughts?

It does require ambassadors and players as well as me to market and respond this way rather than falling into the trap of seeing it as unstable or changing a lot.
DBMM and ADLG have lots of amendments.  ADLG is 9 pages long.  Tweaked twice in last 18 months.  FoG 3 had a long correction list issued shortly after launch. DBM and DBMM had sizeable lists of tweaks. What am I doing wrong? It is of course a lot less work for me and the team to ignore all comments and not adapt anything.....

All thoughts welcome as now it's optimised as a game its time for a big push.  About to invest substantially in doing so.

Si

Its easy to be positive about MEG - brought back my mojo for ancients and soon to do so for renaissance.

I chatted to some ADLG pals at Britcon and they didn't have any awareness of the MEG optimisation framework (they do now) but were sticking with ADLG because its what they know, they like it and lots of people play it.

I think the whole collegiate approach to MEG could be a really good way to break down those barriers.

Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 30, 2019, 01:19:33 PM
That said it was an exercise of faith to do this.
So am open to the idea that having it more rigid with flaws would have been better.
I just don't personally feel that way.  Thoughts?

Would have been a bad move IMO.