The 2020 MeG Compendium ... your input welcome

[craig.w]

More concerned with the impact on shooty cavalry who break off finding other cavalry back at their throat. Being bow armed cavalry in front of lancers is already not much fun but this would be a nightmare change.

Disagree. I'm quite relaxed about it. I find I very rarely actually break off from other mounted.

True, I haven't done it very much because usually after a charge and melee phase the horse archers are a bit sick looking and the KAB from a break off might push them over the edge to breaking, but I have done it, and others have done it to me, so it is nonetheless a change for the worse.

This is from Vasary's "Cumans and Tatars" [2005], p.56 quoting Choniates "They [i.e. the Cumans] fought in their habitual manner, learnt from their fathers. They would attack, shoot their arrows and begin to fight with spears. Before long they would turn their attack into flight and induce their enemy to pursue them. Then they would show their faces instead of their backs, like birds cutting through the air, and would fight face to face with their assailants and struggle even more bravely. This they would do several times, and when they gained the upper hand over the Romans [Byzantines], they would stop turning back again."

That seems to support the idea that mounted should be able to break off.

Interestingly, he also quotes Akropolites on p.55 "He [Kaloyan] was not in Adrianople for long, but he sent the Scythians [the Cumans] against the Italians [the Latins] to use the Scythian war techniques against them. Now it was the habit of the Italians to ride on prancing horses that were completely covered by armour, so that their charges against the enemy were slow. The Scythians, by contrast, were armed more lightly, so they attacked the enemy more freely."

No armoured horses in the Frankokratia lists

[Simon Meg-Meister]

Cannae was "unique" in the sense that if we are to follow the official history it was a trap 

But it happened quite regularly that victorious units, pushing their opponents did uncover their flanks . But that is another story.In the game we have to wait till we break the opponent and pursue to do that 

Which is a deliberate simplification to avoid moving figures all the time. The optional SHOVE rule will go into the compendium though as its great in refights.

S

[Simon Meg-Meister]

More concerned with the impact on shooty cavalry who break off finding other cavalry back at their throat. Being bow armed cavalry in front of lancers is already not much fun but this would be a nightmare change.

Disagree. I'm quite relaxed about it. I find I very rarely actually break off from other mounted.

True, I haven't done it very much because usually after a charge and melee phase the horse archers are a bit sick looking and the KAB from a break off might push them over the edge to breaking, but I have done it, and others have done it to me, so it is nonetheless a change for the worse.

This is from Vasary's "Cumans and Tatars" [2005], p.56 quoting Choniates "They [i.e. the Cumans] fought in their habitual manner, learnt from their fathers. They would attack, shoot their arrows and begin to fight with spears. Before long they would turn their attack into flight and induce their enemy to pursue them. Then they would show their faces instead of their backs, like birds cutting through the air, and would fight face to face with their assailants and struggle even more bravely. This they would do several times, and when they gained the upper hand over the Romans [Byzantines], they would stop turning back again."

That seems to support the idea that mounted should be able to break off.

Interestingly, he also quotes Akropolites on p.55 "He [Kaloyan] was not in Adrianople for long, but he sent the Scythians [the Cumans] against the Italians [the Latins] to use the Scythian war techniques against them. Now it was the habit of the Italians to ride on prancing horses that were completely covered by armour, so that their charges against the enemy were slow. The Scythians, by contrast, were armed more lightly, so they attacked the enemy more freely."

No armoured horses in the Frankokratia lists

It does and I was thinking of it a bit more. Better left in and some troops not alowed to break off perhaps.

S

[Jilu]

a break off characteristic ? might open a panodras box for the armylists

[daveparish]

It does and I was thinking of it a bit more. Better left in and some troops not alowed to break off perhaps.

S

I was thinking one possibility would be to allow breaking off from same speed opponent for mounted but not for foot. It is things like archers breaking off from legionaries that seemed really odd to me (and they only do it in the game as a way of rescuing damaged units not as part of a historical doctrine like Normans (who charge in again)or Cumans (who go back to skirmishing)

[Dru]

I still think its frustrating that units break off, without a KaB test, move a full move and face the enemy. Its disheartening to have a unit at break point and then they get a no-KaB run away AND still face you, with zero consequence. So many times units next to break point just get to piss off, not even expose their rear. It doubles down the frustration if the combat before one rolled blanks on great dice to not do that 1 wound needed AND then just sit there watching them move out of charge range without consequence. I'd like all break offs to have a KaB test (or at least if they want to continue to face the enemy).

[badhabum]

Frustration is part of the game

Break Off is not always easy and historically, many mounted units did withdraw to recover and come charging once again.

It is not unheard off the some fighting between infantry did "pause" while each other caught breath ...

In some cases there is a KAB, some not . Not a problem for me but the unit breaking off should remain in charge range of his opponent or a universal max 3 MU for mounted or 2 MU for foot same as when you use the M12 or M13 move

[rayfredjohn]

Frustration is part of the game

Break Off is not always easy and historically, many mounted units did withdraw to recover and come charging once again.

It is not unheard off the some fighting between infantry did "pause" while each other caught breath ...

In some cases there is a KAB, some not . Not a problem for me but the unit breaking off should remain in charge range of his opponent or a universal max 3 MU for mounted or 2 MU for foot same as when you use the M12 or M13 move

I would imagine cavalry breaking off involved turning your back on the enemy. I think all cavalry break offs should cause a KaB test. 

It is my opinion that no break off should result in being out of charge range from the enemy broken off from.

[badhabum]

think all cavalry break offs should cause a KaB test. 

Not so sure as it was pretty common in some armies ...Byzantines, normans etc...

[jasonbroomer]

Could just up the card cost for break-offs to make them more expensive or impossible for say tribal?

[Simon Meg-Meister]

See the posted proposed tweaks which address the issues raised here in some form.

S

[daveparish]

Could just up the card cost for break-offs to make them more expensive or impossible for say tribal?

The other possibility would be to allow break-offs of only 1 MU. That means the other player could still charge them even if his unit was immobilised in combat with another part of the frontage ...but it would have no impact on the Norman style "break off, charge in again" doctrine and would also allow the Steppe nomad-y dance (because the broken-off unit would be able to evade if then charged).

[Roger]

Some thoughts

There is a cross over line between rules and characteristics, rules should be simple and apply to everybody, once you have to start parsing rules to accommodate specific troops of an army or era, i.e "see breaking off thread" then we should really be talking about characteristics, with the additional advantage that you can ascribe points (or not) to them, to balance armies and influences, and definitively easier to alter during the life of the rules.

Mixed front and flank charges from a non flank position, should always be frontal in both charge and melee, units hit in corner with time to see should "flatten" to accommodate, Charge's from a flank position happens to quick and mostly unseen by troops in time to react, so still allow's the flank base contact to fight the flank on both charge and melee.

Ability to contract and slide past the flank should maybe be a Characteristic, generally Tribal would not be able to ignore enemy apparently exposed on there flank!, formed do not have the skill or experience to ignore enemy to there front, but some drilled certainly could be trained and experienced enough to manage it.

[DracoStandard]

maybe limit wheeling for tribal or formed within 1bw of an enemy?

[badhabum]

From discussions we had at Britcon , on the continent we would like to have a real stability. Even a UK player discussed with me the feeling we had to have new army lists or rule changes from one tournament to another. We would like to stick to what is written so write it well because we loose players that do not want to play MEG anymore.

Some of the points

May a unit that made a skirmish shoot during the shooting phase if it did not have the opportunity during charge phase . The written answer is NO as written in the official 2019 clarries. The referee told me YES because it had been clarified otherwise recently . Black and White . I bowed to the referee's decision but wondered if the written rules still were useful.

Now if we stick to it, they may shoot, a unit that did make a run away will it have to shoot one color lower or will it have none of the disadvantage of having run away.

SKIRMISHING/RUNNING AWAY : the SUG/TUG may go forward/Backward or the direction of the charge. It gives such units a great maneuverability as it may move after that even limited but it is possible and by doing so be in the rear or flank of an enemy unit . A running away unit may move more than the maximum as it may move 2 MU after running away.  IMO, the unit should first try to run away from the direction of the charge. Another way to do it would be by restricting the possible moves after SK or Running away even more .

Some wanted clarifications on the path of charge. As it is written, it is the path that the unit would cover while charging so some people have difficulties with shooty units in the back that shoots at the charger that is to the front . I understand both logics but whatever the final decision will be it needs to be written black on white .

Remember, on the continent we play less tournaments and do not have direct access to Simon's input as regularly as you my dears :-)

So my first report. Will ponder for the next points .