I don't intend to play the « bad French » nor to question the collaborative process, but just to share our reality in France.
As mentioned on a dramatic regularity by our friends from Belgium and ourselves we need stability and look forward for it with the next (and hopefully last) oncoming version.

Understood.

Ijust want to understand why it is seen as such a problem, as it surprises me given the modest levels of change.
Having just read other rules addendums there are lots of tweaks in them.
Arguably more than in Mortem et Gloriam since launch.
As you say, in any case the optimisation process is over I believe so not a big issue going forward.

It will take two things to grow a lot now.
A commercialised push from me ... more news soon.
And active promotion by players and countering of any false impressions.

I have remained a bit quiet in the first half of this year given a) injuries and b) lot of interesting discussions behind the scenes.
But all will burst into life in the next month or so.
Should give all fans of the system plenty to shout about.
Keep the faith ...

Si

Tell it, brother! Praise be! Hallelujah! ...oh, wait, you weren't ready yet? Sorry, I'll wait for the signal.

Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 30, 2019, 01:14:03 PM
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

I'm with the francophonie on this. The changes need to stop or you might end up with a committed core of UK players who play every week (it seems) and no-one else. We always seems to read that there are only a few 'minor changes' but take knights for example. Almost all move 5 now, therefore (in my opinion) making horse archer armies worse, as they get pushed off the table more easily. The few knights that are fully armoured horse are actually worse than the ones without armour. Similarly, a lot of horse archer armies were depowered by removing cantabrian from half of them. Now it seems that to counteract these changes and bump horse archers the rules for prompting through fire are going to be changed. Maybe it would have been better to keep knights moving 4 and not to chop all the cantabrian out? It's like a dog chasing its tail with the rules changes. One change causes another, which causes another. Now chariots are changing after 3 years. What happens if that change turns out to be a bad one and battle chariots are made worse? Will the rules change again, will point costs need to be changed? This all just in time for the supposedly 'final edition'. Uneven terrain has gone, how will that change cavalry armies? Worse off, surely, but how much worse off won't be known for a while - so then should we expect more changes?

To be honest, I don't really believe this will be the 'final edition', mainly because there are some changes going ahead that I think will have as yet unknown effects on how armies play. There is a lot bigger figure commitment in MeG than ADLG, if rule or list changes nerf lists (what will keil changes do for example?) then that is a lot of time and money wasted. Take Hephtalite or Gokturks, they are a couple of the unlucky nomad lists with unarmoured nobles. Just seems like a list change for no real reason apart from making them different (and rubbish). Unfortunately I was going to use Hephtalite and one of the players in our group was building a Gokturk list. RJC may say that they are ok, but sorry, when your best troops are only half protected, and your historical opponents are all protected shooters, it's not much fun. I have a whole truckload of 15th century Swiss and Italian troops in the painting queue, I'm wondering what changes to expect in the future.

'Perception is reality', as they say. If players perceive that the rules are 'beta testing' then they are, regardless of the intent of the author. I love MeG, it got me buying figures when I haven't had any desire to buy any for years. But I'm not sure I want to buy too many more in the next year or two, because sure as eggs RJC will change the lists I'm interested in, or a 'minor tweak' will come along that changes the way an army plays.

Just my 2c...

or maybe wait one year for V2.... and betatest more outside the tournaments

Thanks all.

I am, as ever, open to the feedback and counsel.
I see what you are saying in that what is a small change in the rules, actually feels a material change in the way some armies and games play.
So perception is reality as you say.

I want the rules to really blossom now so we don't want many changes going forward to anything.
It was a huge task to optimise things as we we have.  And is a massive success.
We have the best balanced game and the best army feel ever and need to promote this.

I need to ponder a bit and decide what to do.
I am with the team in the UK next Sunday so we can discuss more thoroughly in person.
There is a real trade off now between tweaking to get things perfect as I see them or leaving them as they are.
Rule changes have largely fizzled out now. 

The PBS tweak is just an improvement for variety.  The reduction in prompting through fire something I considered last time and said I would do in two stages. 
But neither are fixing something that is broken.  Both are optimising something that isn't.
Perhaps the search for perfection is a step too far .... 

I am going to create a separate post as a poll

IMPORTANT DECISIONS AND WANT TO GET THEM RIGHT WITH MINIMUM DISRUPTION TO CURRENT PLAYERS AND THEIR ABILITY TO GATHER NEW PLAYERS.
AS YOU SAY PERCEPTION IS REALITY.

Si

Please all see this important post from me.
A lot about to happen ... and listening as ever.

https://mortem-et-gloriam.co.uk/smf/index.php?topic=722.0

Si

Great weekend play testing the 2020 changes. Everything worked well. I was worried about prompting through fire but it only took a small mindset change.

Quote from: rayfredjohn on September 08, 2019, 04:58:51 PM
I was worried about prompting through fire but it only took a small mindset change.

Definitely falls into the refinement category and not a big change, but enough to balance things IMO.

I'd also add that no longer having Uneven affected my terrain choices - whilst, as it happens, to my disadvantage compared to the current position, it is better IMO.

I think they all played really well and its becuase they are allrather small changes anyway.

The chariots is a list change and much materials but I am now convinced it a net + for the period although always going to be a small net - if you liked it today for the "tanks".

Great team day and some good little bits came up that worked really nicely.  Thanks all.

About to board.

S

About BREAK OFF: "2. Only Cv,Cm,Ch allowed to break off from equal speed opponents."

I wish you would retain the previous rule. It was the only way to re-fight historical battle like Chaeronia etc. That was a plus comparing with other rules.

Interesting.
Remind me about the details of Cheronae Kostas.

S

Was there any thought on changing flank marches to make them easier to arrive and when they arrive they are not blocked from coming on the table on the enemy half by enemy units not giving them enough room to arrive.
Has anyone used a flank march in a competition?

I have used them a lot.

But almost always with flexible cavalry.
Flank marches in MeG comps are really table extensions for the envelopment armies.

Done a chariot one once as well with Britons that worked a treat.

Compared to other rules it is:

• Much easier to flank march with flexible or skirmishers
  About the same with cavalry
  Much harder with others

Which is deliberate and feel right.