Version 3 Errata

General discussion forum for anything related to Field of Glory Ancients & Medieval.

Moderators: philqw78, terrys, hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators

petedalby
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3100
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:23 pm
Location: Fareham, UK

Re: Version 3 Errata

Post by petedalby »

FWIW I agree with Graham. "Combat is adjudicated in the next impact phase".

But the RAW leave it open to interpretation. It clearly doesn't happen that often but it does need to be clarified one way or the other.
Pete
dave_r
General - King Tiger
General - King Tiger
Posts: 3849
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:58 pm

Re: Version 3 Errata

Post by dave_r »

grahambriggs wrote:One of the issues in having the mounted break off is that it could be bad news for them. Frequently, for foot to pursue into the mounted, that will mean the routers have either burst through the mounted or shifted sideways a bit and run behind them. JAP break offs occur before JAP routs. Often this will mean that the mounted can't break off and drop a level, and then have to fight an impact next bound anyway at a further disadvantage.
When foot charge mounted, it is usually not good for the foot.

It is unlikely that the cavalry will be prevented from breaking off, if the routers have shifted, then it's almost impossible for the routers to prevent the break off. If the cavalry have been burst through the routers will almost certainly prevent the break off. Although expecting cavalry to break off from enemy moments after having been burst through is expecting a lot.

I've had this happen a couple of times. It is the first time I've ever _wanted_ to break off from enemy.
Evaluator of Supremacy
madaxeman
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3002
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:15 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Version 3 Errata

Post by madaxeman »

This weeks editions of the various V3 list and rules errata are now posted on the BHGS website
http://www.madaxeman.com
Holiday in Devon? Try https://www.thecaptainscottagebrixham.com
terrys
Panzer Corps Team
Panzer Corps Team
Posts: 4226
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:53 am

Re: Version 3 Errata

Post by terrys »

This weeks editions of the various V3 list and rules errata are now posted on the BHGS website
Thanks Tim
LaurenceP
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:06 pm

Re: Version 3 Errata

Post by LaurenceP »

Hello

I have rulebooks 1 and 2 but was not convinced.
Very interested in starting with FoG, I was prepared to order now the v3 rulebook and checked the forum before...my impression:

3rd rule edition out not a long time ago and already a lot of errata???...Even the errata with errors!!!!!!!
Why should I buy then such a rulebook?

Why is it not possible to avoid such an amount of errors!?!
dave_r
General - King Tiger
General - King Tiger
Posts: 3849
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:58 pm

Re: Version 3 Errata

Post by dave_r »

Clearly done on purpose just to annoy people.
Evaluator of Supremacy
grahambriggs
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3057
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: Version 3 Errata

Post by grahambriggs »

LaurenceP wrote:Hello

I have rulebooks 1 and 2 but was not convinced.
Very interested in starting with FoG, I was prepared to order now the v3 rulebook and checked the forum before...my impression:

3rd rule edition out not a long time ago and already a lot of errata???...Even the errata with errors!!!!!!!
Why should I buy then such a rulebook?

Why is it not possible to avoid such an amount of errors!?!
There are two reasons:

1. There was an error by the publisher and a page of corrections were not made. This is most of the errata.

2. We are human.

Version 3 is a better rule set than version 1 or version 2.
philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8812
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Book 2 Errata P15

Post by philqw78 »

There is an errata entry for the Clibanarii, but the line above shows Catafractarii as Average 13 and Superior 8 points per base.

What should it be? I assume 18 points and still superior
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory : Ancient & Medieval Era 3000 BC-1500 AD : General Discussion”