Army Traits

[MrSki]

Isnt it about time MeG adopted the ReG system of army traits to give a broader colour to armies. Things like Feigned flight would make more sense as an army wide trait than one unit for example. Armies that fought in heavy terrain could have a trait that allows a bit of extra non removable cover if they defend. some of the other ReG style traits could be adopted and other more ancient specific.
As the lists are electronic and most people are moving to pdf rules, surely now would be the time to consider this.

[tarnowski1]

I didnt realize there was such a widespread dissatisfaction am amongst current MEG players for the existing setup.

[lionheartrjc]

Isnt it about time MeG adopted the ReG system of army traits to give a broader colour to armies. Things like Feigned flight would make more sense as an army wide trait than one unit for example. Armies that fought in heavy terrain could have a trait that allows a bit of extra non removable cover if they defend. some of the other ReG style traits could be adopted and other more ancient specific.
As the lists are electronic and most people are moving to pdf rules, surely now would be the time to consider this.

This is something that we have been considering for the army lists.

Richard

[martymagnificent]

Personally I feel there may be too much of this sort of 'chrome' in ReG. The list of army traits, formations and characteristics is truly huge.

Not necessarily a good thing for Meg.

Martin

[badhabum]

There is a difference between too much and a little bit . But be careful as it could endanger the balance of the armies .

So it might give something more but it will need fine tuning

[nikgaukroger]

Personally I feel there may be too much of this sort of 'chrome' in ReG. The list of army traits, formations and characteristics is truly huge.

Not necessarily a good thing for Meg.

Martin

Tend to agree that there is chrome for chrome's sake in ReG (but obviously that is subjective) and would not personally want much added to MeG. However, I think there is mileage in the Army Traits idea - it is not being rushed into though and is, I think, most likely to be something added as part of a significant overhaul some way in the future.

[lionheartrjc]

I certainly don't see army traits being as prevalent as they are in ReG.

Richard

[daveparish]

Personally I feel there may be too much of this sort of 'chrome' in ReG. The list of army traits, formations and characteristics is truly huge.

Not necessarily a good thing for Meg.

Martin

Tend to agree that there is chrome for chrome's sake in ReG (but obviously that is subjective) and would not personally want much added to MeG. However, I think there is mileage in the Army Traits idea - it is not being rushed into though and is, I think, most likely to be something added as part of a significant overhaul some way in the future.

I agree with both these comments. It's probably personal taste but I like rules where characteristics emerge from the underlying rules. For example the list has lots of loose troops, loose troops are good in terrain... result is as though your army has the Army Trait of  Terrain Capable (... and I think there are lots of more subtle examples like that in MEG). If you have to make it an Army Trait then in a way that is a failure in your main rules.

Having said that I will still play REG (signed up for REG Skull Rollers) .... and you could argue that the Baroque period needs baroque rules!!

[lionheartrjc]

At present the main item that can be considered an army trait is feigned flight.
Another is the requirement to invade (Alexandrian Expeditionary).

The former is to cater for a feature of the rules.  The latter makes historical sense, is simple to understand, and does not unbalance the game unduly.

Most of the ReG traits I don't think would apply to MeG but I must admit I quite like the idea of an Inspirational Icon trait (something which in the existing lists don't really work).  The Elephants and Kings trait might work as this rule has been discussed elsewhere on this forum.  Domiciled trait might work for Moluccas (4813) which after all have little going for them otherwise.

Richard

[martymagnificent]

Personally I feel there may be too much of this sort of 'chrome' in ReG. The list of army traits, formations and characteristics is truly huge.

Not necessarily a good thing for Meg.

Martin

Tend to agree that there is chrome for chrome's sake in ReG (but obviously that is subjective) and would not personally want much added to MeG. However, I think there is mileage in the Army Traits idea - it is not being rushed into though and is, I think, most likely to be something added as part of a significant overhaul some way in the future.

I agree with both these comments. It's probably personal taste but I like rules where characteristics emerge from the underlying rules. For example the list has lots of loose troops, loose troops are good in terrain... result is as though your army has the Army Trait of  Terrain Capable (... and I think there are lots of more subtle examples like that in MEG). If you have to make it an Army Trait then in a way that is a failure in your main rules.

Having said that I will still play REG (signed up for REG Skull Rollers) .... and you could argue that the Baroque period needs baroque rules!!

I also play ReG quite a bit. Had two games in the last couple of weeks. Just think it could use some pruning.

Martin

[Simon Meg-Meister]

Wary of over cluttering a game spanning 3000 years with such things.  A little different if capturing detailed variety in a narrow period.  So I would not want to see many of them in total, but a few as RJC is mentioning is fine.

[SteveO]

Thank you Simon - sensible approach IMHO.

[rage13]

I started playing MeG back in lockdown and pretty soon after quite a few other people in the club were playing it too. We looked at ReG when it first came out - but it didn't feel quite right......however, over the last couple of years it has truly come into it's own. To the extent that we rarely play MeG now at my club - which is a shame.

There is just so much extra flavour - 3 wounds per base, KAB tests causing a wound, army traits & characteristics etc, etc. We have all said that we would love it if MeG were to follow the road that ReG has taken. Roman Legions in chequerboard, phalanx as keils etc., feigned flight as a Army Trait - there are loads of things that on the face of it could be relatively easily ported over as the mechanics are already play-tested.

I know the argument is that the anbcient period is so large - but arguably it went through fewer transitions than the Renaissance. We currently play The Italian Wars, English Civil War, 30 Years War, War of the Spanish Succession, The Deluge regularly and have Japanede, Indian & Turkish armies all in the pipeline. All pretty varied, ranging from armoured Gendarmes, to Winged Hussars to unarmoured Dragoon - from Keils & Tercios, through to firepower based infantry and everything else in between.

[badhabum]

I started playing MeG back in lockdown and pretty soon after quite a few other people in the club were playing it too. We looked at ReG when it first came out - but it didn't feel quite right......however, over the last couple of years it has truly come into it's own. To the extent that we rarely play MeG now at my club - which is a shame.

There is just so much extra flavour - 3 wounds per base, KAB tests causing a wound, army traits & characteristics etc, etc. We have all said that we would love it if MeG were to follow the road that ReG has taken. Roman Legions in chequerboard, phalanx as keils etc., feigned flight as a Army Trait - there are loads of things that on the face of it could be relatively easily ported over as the mechanics are already play-tested.

I know the argument is that the anbcient period is so large - but arguably it went through fewer transitions than the Renaissance. We currently play The Italian Wars, English Civil War, 30 Years War, War of the Spanish Succession, The Deluge regularly and have Japanede, Indian & Turkish armies all in the pipeline. All pretty varied, ranging from armoured Gendarmes, to Winged Hussars to unarmoured Dragoon - from Keils & Tercios, through to firepower based infantry and everything else in between.

I would like to answer to 2 points :
- 3 wounds a base would not work for MEG , just make a long game even longer . REG is played when nearly everyone shoots , shoots green and sometimes yellow and if in melee "S" is a wound and a flank charge inflicts an automatic wound. So what works in REG would not work in MEG just we would need 5 hours games.

- Romans in checkerboard : 8 bases being the full Xth legion, the checkerboard formation is part of the factors . The scale is pretty different . The legion could deploy each in checkerboard but 30 years war whole armies deployed in checkerboard so a bit difficult to compare ( IMO )

But adding a few army traits might give something more to the game, making "S" a wound in melee might speed up a game which ( IMO ) really needs it, upgrading the shooting in the flank also ..It works, It is easy to play it, to adapt the rules for a quicker game and yes it is needed if you want younger players to come an dplay and REG showed it to all that those modifications could work but you cannot transfer all REG to MEG as the scale is pretty different and REG is adapted to fireweapon armies which even a trastamara army is but a prototype 

[rage13]

Well on the wound points I would just add that in ReG taking a KAB test causes a wound plus whatever is rolled on a die - so a KAB test will always have a result. Not so in MeG - an S result has no effect so a series of 'good' rolls with an army collapsing around it could see some units unaffected. I really like the escalation of wounds caused by KAB tests as multiple things go wrong.

Whilst lots of things in ReG are shooty it doesn't mean they do shoot. I have plenty of troops in my ReG armies where the best option is still to just get stuck in.

Definately agree re the S in melere being a wound.

In terms of the Romans, specifically........scales can vary between armies so you get an full sized army fighting what is effectively a large warband. Imperial Roman armies tended to comprise 2 Legions plus Auxiliaries - in the Army Lists units can be 4 bases strong & you can have up to 64 of them (16 units) so it would be totally possible to use the chequerboard rule......but i'm sure there are lots of traits that can be easily applied to many armies.