FOGN errata

[Albion1]

After first game at weekend I agree.
We really need a good QRS with page numbers to more detailed info from the rule book.

[MikeK]

My understanding is that there are publishing process reasons to omit page cross-references in order to avoid having wrong page numbers in the final printed version.

There are some details of the sequence of play that are not obvious. The flow of play is essential to the system. I am on my own writing up a detailed sequence of play using the line-by-line format of the FOGR SOP table (and page references as applicable) to break it down step-by-step.

For example, p24 says move units in command first, then those out of command, subject to the movement restrictions; the p37 restrictions add that those units broken in the other player’s last turn move first, then others in any order. Since Broken units can't use CPs, being in command is not relevant to them, so I interpret this as meaning those Broken move first, then units in command, then those not in command.

[pptheos]

A detailed sequence of play will certaintly help a lot!

[shadowdragon]

This might have been mentioned before, but...top of page 71....a semantic issue:

"A Commander can only recover one unit, which may be any unit of the corps for a Corps Commander, of his own division for a Division commander, or his parent unit for a Brigade commander."

"Parent unit" should probably be replaced something like "his attached unit for a Brigade commander". Normally one would assumed the attached unit is "subordinate" to the brigade commander and the brigade commander's "parent" organization is the division. So, as it reads a brigade commander supposedly could recover any unit in the division...except he has no command range.

[MikeK]

Also this for errata if not logged yet, and for emphasis if logged since I learned it (common sense it is) and then doubted it when re-searching the rules (add blue, delete red):

Bottom of page 71:
• Broken units must attempt to rally during the PLAYER's nextfirst Recovery Phase after it becomes Broken. If the Broken unit either fails to rally or doesn’t attempt to rally then it is destroyed and removed from the table.

As Terry wrote, "Broken units get 1 and only 1 attempt to recover, and that will always occur during the owning players first recover phase after the unit is broken."

[MikeK]

Just to be clear....I think this is right, but I might be doing it wrong.

I have not found anything spot on saying so, but the implications of the mechanics indicates that Rally rolls are mandatory and occur before and independently of commander recoveries.

Cavalry can in theory break and rally multiple times since the single-rally rule only covers infantry.

Artillery can only recover abandoned guns once, but it can in theory break normally and rally multiple times.

[shadowdragon]

Just to be clear....I think this is right, but I might be doing it wrong.

I have not found anything spot on saying so, but the implications of the mechanics indicates that Rally rolls are mandatory and occur before and independently of commander recoveries.

That's what I thought at first, but now I think you can only rally with a commander. It's confusing...

Top of page 68 - "A Broken unit MUST attempt to rally in the owning player's first Recovery Phase after it has been Broken. If the attempt fails, the unit is permanently removed from the table."
Top of page 72 - "If the Broken unit either fails to rally or doesn't attempt to rally then it is destroyed and removed from the table."

"MUST" seems to imply a rally attempt with or without a commander, but a "rally" is a type of "recovery" (see the Cohesion test chart for the "Recovery tests" section. I suppose the argument is a unit MUST attempt to rally and a rally attempt means having a commander and rolling for recovery. No commander = no dice and an automatic failure. However, I initially took it the other way that a rally test was made with or without a commander. Authors????

Cavalry can in theory break and rally multiple times since the single-rally rule only covers infantry.

Artillery can only recover abandoned guns once, but it can in theory break normally and rally multiple times.

I'm not sure where you're reading that a "single-rally rule only covers infantry". The above references and the chart don't make that restriction.

[Blathergut]

There was a posting by terry somewhere addressing the routing. Yes, you need a commander to rally broken troops. If you don't have one about, or if he chooses to attempt to recover a disordered or wavering unit instead, the broken troops are lost. There are no free rally attempts.

[shadowdragon]

There was a posting by terry somewhere addressing the routing. Yes, you need a commander to rally broken troops. If you don't have one about, or if he chooses to attempt to recover a disordered or wavering unit instead, the broken troops are lost. There are no free rally attempts.

It is here:

viewtopic.php?f=69&t=33246

[MikeK]

Thanks.

"cohesion losses start to mount up - too many for a commander to recover in one turn. Then one unit breaks and the whole pack of cards collapses."

This suggests that a rally attempt precludes the commander recovering anyone else, but is equally true if the broken only needs to be within 4 MU and the broken are too spread out to cover within the 4 MU zone.

Sounds like an errata item is needed saying a rally uses up the commander's recover.

--------------------------------------------------------
p69 "A Spent Infantry unit that breaks a 2nd time will be destroyed and is removed at the end of its outcome move."

Don't find anything re Cavarly suffering likewise.

[terrys]

This suggests that a rally attempt precludes the commander recovering anyone else, but is equally true if the broken only needs to be within 4 MU and the broken are too spread out to cover within the 4 MU zone.

Rallying a broken unit is the same as recovering a broken unit. We only use the term 'rally' in order to signify that the unit is about to be permanently lost. Each Corps or Divisional Commander can only recover or rally one unit in his recovery phase.

[shadowdragon]

p69 "A Spent Infantry unit that breaks a 2nd time will be destroyed and is removed at the end of its outcome move."

Don't find anything re Cavarly suffering likewise.

And also on page 72,"Broken infantry units that are already spent cannot rally and are removed from play at the beginning of the recovery phase. This means that an infantry unit can only ever be rallied once."

I was confusing your comment with the one attempt to rally a broken unit. If it fails it's removed. But I realize that's not your point, which is that cavalry and artillery can be rallied as many times as the dice gods allow.

[MikeK]

Rallying a broken unit is the same as recovering a broken unit. We only use the term 'rally' in order to signify that the unit is about to be permanently lost. Each Corps or Divisional Commander can only recover or rally one unit in his recovery phase.

Indeed, originally I thought that, but upon further reading and play reconsidered whether there was support for it.

[terrys]

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

YEs. Historical OOBs are not subject to specific list requirements.

[clogs4444]

How disappointing the layout and text is in these rules, unlike the previous field of glory rule books.
I guess now the Company knows this!!!!!
Will the Army list books be the same text height and font, I hope not?
Could anyone please advise if there is a QUICK PLAYERS HAND SHEET available so I can read the text? Or do I need a magnifier when playing a game?

Thank you

Clogs

[donm]

Do you have a best estimate as to when the errata details will be out please?

I am having trouble keeping track of the changes.

Thanks

Don

[jdm]

I have passed the current errata file to Phil P for updating to the FOG site
so any day now

jDM

[dvorkin]

Hip hip Houra )

[MikeK]

One thing I thought might be in there was changng the "Skirmishers" attachnment restrictions in the Austrian list from "Only in a mixed division with no light infantry." to "Only in a single mixed division which must contain all light infantry units if any are used."

The existing 1813 Austrian list restriction already says all light infantry taken, both units and attachments, must be in one mixed division. It seems odd that when all lights are restricted to one division that they can't make detachments to screen the line infantry of the division. Since there is a cap of 4 infantry in a mixed division (probably 2 line units), this does not seem subject to much abuse.

Is the concern that the line units with skirmishers would be used as a screen in front of plain unreformed troops rather than just the lights? Or is it not wanting to encourage stuffing the light division with some line troops?

[panda2]

The existing 1813 Austrian list restriction already says all light infantry taken, both units and attachments, must be in one mixed division. It seems odd that when all lights are restricted to one division that they can't make detachments to screen the line infantry of the division. Since there is a cap of 4 infantry in a mixed division (probably 2 line units), this does not seem subject to much abuse.

It may not be very open to in game abuse. However, it wouldn't be very historically accurate. In 1813 Austrian Corp d'Armee would have at most 2-3 battalions of light infantry (Grenzers and Jaegers combined) in the advanced guard division. Allowing 8 bases is already too generous in my opinion. Furthermore, allowing a unit of Jaegers may also be too generous. At Leipzig, for example, only the First Corps had any Jaegers and it only had a single battalion.

The only way an Austrian Corps could have as many light infantry as the list currently allows would be if it had a light division from the army advanced guard added to it. However, in that case there would be two mixed divisions containing light infantry and the corps cavalry maxima and minima would probably need to be increased. The addition of a light division (and/or a cavalry or grenadier division for the army reserves) may be allowed in the final lists when they are published.

The only change I would make to the handling of the advanced guard divisions in an Austrian Corps in 1813 would be to change the minima for the mixed division fielding the light infantry to be 1 unit of infantry and 2 units of cavalry. This would allow the organsation used by 3 of the 4 corps at Leipzig, which would be represented by one unit of light infantry and 2-3 units of cavalry (plus a unit or attachment of horse artillery), to be legally fielded. As the list currently stands the minimum of 2 infantry units in a mixed division means that only 1 of the 4 corps, which contained an additional line infantry brigade in its advanced guard, would be legal. The current restrictions look fine for 1809, however, where the corps advanced guards were only brigades and would therefore, in game terms, normally be mixed in with a line infantry division.

Andy D