FOGN errata

General discussion forum for anything related to Field of Glory Napoleonics.

Moderators: hammy, Blathergut, terrys, Slitherine Core

Post Reply
timt9cole
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:47 pm

FOGN errata

Post by timt9cole » Mon Mar 19, 2012 1:23 pm

A couple of things I noticed on my initial read through.

Artwork references for pages 90 and 102 are the wrong way round.

Page 63 I think the last word should be actual rather than accrual

Hardly of any great significance but you may want to amend them for subsequent printings.

Regards
Tim

timt9cole
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:47 pm

Re: FOGN typos

Post by timt9cole » Mon Mar 19, 2012 3:28 pm

And also:

Complex Move tests
P44 - Cavalry assaulting a target also being assaulted by infantry
Playsheet - Infantry assaulting a target also being assaulted by cavalry

Which one is right or are they both right?

Regards
Tim

jdm
Slitherine
Slitherine
Posts: 1139
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 10:41 am

Re: FOGN typos

Post by jdm » Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:37 pm

Thanks for this Tim, I will keep this thread running as it will help us when we come to do an errata

Regards
JDM

BrettPT
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1263
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:52 am
Location: Auckland, NZ

Re: FOGN typos

Post by BrettPT » Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:57 pm

timt9cole wrote:And also:
Complex Move tests
P44 - Cavalry assaulting a target also being assaulted by infantry
Playsheet - Infantry assaulting a target also being assaulted by cavalry

Which one is right or are they both right?
There is also the reference in the assault section (pg 28) to the effect that it is the cavalry that test.

As an aside, if the QRS is correct and the infantry (rather than the cavalry) test, this would go a long way towards solving the conflicting rules issue on page 28 concerning impetuous combined arms charges.

Cheers
Brett

terrys
Panzer Corps Team
Panzer Corps Team
Posts: 4181
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:53 am

Re: FOGN typos

Post by terrys » Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:16 pm

As an aside, if the QRS is correct and the infantry (rather than the cavalry) test, this would go a long way towards solving the conflicting rules issue on page 28 concerning impetuous combined arms charges.
The QRS is correct. Now that I have my copy of the rules we're loooking at publishing an errata, FAQ sheet etc.

halbaraddebrest
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 528
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 5:13 pm

Re: FOGN errata

Post by halbaraddebrest » Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:51 pm

Some others things that may necessitate an errata :

Page 34 : example, why unit at the bottom left cannot assault, she could weel 90° and assault the flank ?, or why not ?

Page 45 : Table, Nothing is writen for "Artillery only" "unlimber" "steady or disorder" : so does not need a CMT or is it a "any another allowed move, manoeuver, or formation change not listed as simple" (page 44) and so need a CMT.

Page 125 : Table, I think a column is missing for "core cavalry" with the total of maximum base (as for" core infantry")

Regards

Xavier

shadowdragon
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2043
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:29 pm
Location: Manotick, Ontario, Canada

Re: FOGN errata

Post by shadowdragon » Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:00 pm

Do inactive players restore ADC's during the active player's recovery phase?

On page 25, the Recovery Phase only mentions that "The active player returns his Command Point markers to their respective commanders".

On page 67, it also only mentions that the "active player returns his command point markers to their respective commanders" (*See note)

...but on the playsheet, it provides the action sequence for the Recovery Phase as:

Recovery: Move commanders & restore ADC's: Both players - inactive player first.

I assume the playsheet is in error.

* Note: why is this a bullet for "Tests have the following restrictions:" Returning ADC's to commanders would seem to be something that's got nothing to do with a recovery test.
Last edited by shadowdragon on Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

shadowdragon
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2043
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:29 pm
Location: Manotick, Ontario, Canada

Re: FOGN errata

Post by shadowdragon » Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:06 pm

How close can wavering units get to the enemy?

On page 42:

"A wavering unit must... not move to or within 6 MU of an enemy unit nor move closer if any enemy already at or within 6 MU"

On page 46

"A wavering unit may not move to within 10MU of an enemy unit, or closer to any enemy if already with 10MU".

I'm assuming the former is right. I'm not sure why the latter is in the section on CMT since there's no mention of a CMT.

Scrumpy
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Posts: 1423
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 7:27 pm
Location: NoVa

Re: FOGN errata

Post by Scrumpy » Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:52 pm

In the Prussian 1813 list it says you can have 4-8 Dragoons and 4 Hussars yet you are only allowed 8 of both types.

terrys
Panzer Corps Team
Panzer Corps Team
Posts: 4181
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:53 am

Re: FOGN errata

Post by terrys » Thu Mar 22, 2012 12:23 pm

In the Prussian 1813 list it says you can have 4-8 Dragoons and 4 Hussars yet you are only allowed 8 of both types.
That's not the problem - its the minimum 4 of each. (which means that you can't have 8 average dragoons).

donm
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 584
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 12:08 am
Location: Clevedon, England

Re: FOGN errata

Post by donm » Thu Mar 22, 2012 7:59 pm

Terry,

Which is correct please?

I pretty sure the Prussians had as many dragoon regiments as curassiers.

Don

terrys
Panzer Corps Team
Panzer Corps Team
Posts: 4181
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:53 am

Re: FOGN errata

Post by terrys » Fri Mar 23, 2012 8:37 am

Which is correct please?

I pretty sure the Prussians had as many dragoon regiments as curassiers.
I'm pretty sure that we'll raise the overall total to 12.

I'll sit down with Mike after Campaign this weekend and create a list of errata to publish on the web site.
So keep them coming

Chasseur
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 544
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 7:42 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: FOGN errata

Post by Chasseur » Sat Mar 24, 2012 4:26 am

Hi Terry,

On QRS under OUTCOME MOVES it says "Disrupted" when this should read "Disordered".

On QRS for the MOVEMENT TABLE there is no colour coding in the colour coding section.

Cheers,
John Shaw
Last edited by Chasseur on Sat Mar 24, 2012 1:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.

AlanCutner
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: FOGN errata

Post by AlanCutner » Sat Mar 24, 2012 9:55 am

'Effects of Enemy Cavalry' (page 50) reduces dice available if enemy cavalry are within 6MU, no minimum range stated. But the tables on page 49 only have a deduction at medium range (2-6MU), not at close range (0-2MU).

Which is correct? I'm assuming the tables as the reason given is withdrawal of the skirmish companies. This would also make sense for unreformed infantry as they have no skirmishers to withdraw.

Chasseur
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 544
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 7:42 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: FOGN errata

Post by Chasseur » Sat Mar 24, 2012 1:19 pm

Hi Alan,

My understanding is that both are correct. They refer to different measurements but they relate to the same item.
The reduction of dice only affects medium range (2 - 6MU) firing. The Cavalry imposes this penalty if they are within 6MU of the firing unit (that is, if they are 0 - 6MU away.
The first measurement (2 - 6MU) relates to the firing unit's range - that is, they are performing skirmish fire. The important point to note is that the Cavalry do not have to be the target of the firing if they are a Cavalry unit. For example, the unit may be firing at an enemy Infantry unit, but if an enemy Cavalry unit is withing 6MU of the firing unit, then the reduction applies. In the case of a Cavalry attachment, however, the Cavalry attachment must be with a unit that is partially or fully a target of the firing unit.
The second (0 - 6MU) relates to whether the Cavalry are close enough to be consisdered a threat in running down the skirmishers.

You are right in that it represents the skirmish companies keeping their distance or retiring back to the main body rather than being run down by the cavalry.
Short range represents massed rank volley fire, where the skirmishers have normally rejoined their main body, so the reduction does not apply at short range.
The difference is realistic in that Cavalry attachments would not travel far from the Infantry they were supporting, whereas Cavalry units might go anywhere (at least in the minds of the skirmishers).

Regards,
John Shaw

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Re: FOGN errata

Post by hazelbark » Sun Mar 25, 2012 8:38 pm

P45 and CRT
Artillery Unlimber are " " blank.

I presume simple. But its missing.

donm
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 584
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 12:08 am
Location: Clevedon, England

Re: FOGN errata

Post by donm » Sun Mar 25, 2012 8:44 pm

Also blank on the QRS in the back of the rules.

Don

CutEmUp
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 3:50 pm

Re: FOGN errata

Post by CutEmUp » Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:28 am

Pg 131

*Each Infantry and mixed division must have at least one Landwher unit

*If used, guards must all be in the same unit which may nit contain any non guards units


Which is it? Must guard units have a landwher or are landwher not allowed with guards

AlanCutner
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: FOGN errata

Post by AlanCutner » Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:42 am

Sacile OOB puts more than one artillery unit in a division. But rules specify max 1 artillery unit per division. Is this an exception because its a historical list

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Re: FOGN errata

Post by hazelbark » Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:01 pm

AlanCutner wrote:Sacile OOB puts more than one artillery unit in a division. But rules specify max 1 artillery unit per division. Is this an exception because its a historical list
Sacile is 1809

The other lists are 1812-13

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory : Napoleonic Era 1792-1815 : General Discussion”