Page 1 of 3

List Errata

Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 9:30 pm
by philqw78
Whare the territory types for Warring States Chinese? It mentions Western Han only

Re: List Errata

Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 9:34 pm
by nikgaukroger
Agricultural, Developed and Hilly would be a good bet.

Re: List Errata

Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 10:12 pm
by philqw78
Not until official

Re: List Errata

Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:21 am
by petedalby
I now have a copy of the new lists. There is much in there to like but there are also quite a few errors. When can we expect to see an errata for the lists please?

As an aside - where did the Cataphract Camels go?

Re: List Errata

Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:30 am
by nikgaukroger
petedalby wrote:I now have a copy of the new lists. There is much in there to like but there are also quite a few errors. When can we expect to see an errata for the lists please?
No idea, but might it not be a good idea to flag any possible errors here so that Terry et al are aware of them?

As an aside - where did the Cataphract Camels go?
Fairly sure they should have been in there. They were missed out in the initial draft but Terry noted it and I thought was going to put a single BG of them in - maybe as a special campaign for 217 AD.

Re: List Errata

Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:40 am
by terrys
As an aside - where did the Cataphract Camels go?

Fairly sure they should have been in there. They were missed out in the initial draft but Terry noted it and I thought was going to put a single BG of them in - maybe as a special campaign for 217 AD.
They should have been in the Parthian list - I'll be looking to publish an errata next week which will cover any errors and add these to the Parthians.

Re: List Errata

Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 5:10 pm
by grahambriggs
petedalby wrote:I now have a copy of the new lists. There is much in there to like but there are also quite a few errors. When can we expect to see an errata for the lists please?
Having just done some proof reading on book 2 I was finding that I was missing errors on the first couple of run throughs. It would be a good idea perhaps to jot the book 1 issues down here as they are spotted.

Re: List Errata

Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 6:13 pm
by petedalby
No problem. Early spots:

Thracian - Roman option - should be 46AD

Later Carthaginian - Balearic slingers - presumably should be Unprotected?

Ancient Spanish - Legionaries - presumably should be Armoured?

Re: List Errata

Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:27 pm
by notrum
Terry already has mine for the EAP saka cav which should be 4-6.
The LAP levies and scythed chariots which have no quality.
The Parthian light horse total bases which should be 8 not 16.
None of which I picked up in the proof reading, although the last one was over two pages in our half hearted defence

Steve :oops:

Re: List Errata

Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:02 pm
by petedalby
Elephants may be in 3 base BGs if so specified. I can only find Classical Indian with 2-3 bases as an option. Just wanted to check that was the only intended list in book 1. It would be an easy thing to miss.

Re: List Errata

Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 12:02 pm
by terrys
Elephants may be in 3 base BGs if so specified. I can only find Classical Indian with 2-3 bases as an option. Just wanted to check that was the only intended list in book 1. It would be an easy thing to miss.
That list is the only one in this book that has 2-3 bases. That are quite a few in Book 2.

Re: List Errata

Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:44 pm
by petedalby
Thanks Terry

Re: List Errata

Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:47 am
by shadowdragon
Early Carthaginian:

Total Bases for Poeni / Campanian / Etruscan / Greek cavalry = 0-8 bases
Total Bases for Numidian light cavalry = 0-6 bases

Total Bases for all of the above = 4-16 bases

Should the Total Bases for Numidian light cavalry be 0-8 bases? Or the Total Bases for all Core cavalry be 4-14 bases? Or something else?

Re: List Errata

Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 10:13 pm
by grahambriggs
shadowdragon wrote:Early Carthaginian:

Total Bases for Poeni / Campanian / Etruscan / Greek cavalry = 0-8 bases
Total Bases for Numidian light cavalry = 0-6 bases

Total Bases for all of the above = 4-16 bases

Should the Total Bases for Numidian light cavalry be 0-8 bases? Or the Total Bases for all Core cavalry be 4-14 bases? Or something else?
Thanks, have flagged it to Terry.

Re: List Errata

Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:58 am
by madaxeman
Current version of the list errata now up on the bhgs website

Re: List Errata

Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 7:48 am
by petedalby
Sadly I think the errata needs an errata:

Page 65: TABLE "EARLY CARTHAGINIAN" Numidian light cavalry - "Total bases" - REPLACE "4-6" with "4-8"

Surely we replace 0-6 with 4-8.

Re: List Errata

Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 7:58 am
by nikgaukroger
petedalby wrote:Sadly
"Inevitably" would be a better word ;-)

Re: List Errata

Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:26 pm
by terrys
Page 65: TABLE "EARLY CARTHAGINIAN" Numidian light cavalry - "Total bases" - REPLACE "4-6" with "4-8"

Surely we replace 0-6 with 4-8.
I did notice that immediately after I sent the errata to Tim - However, he's more efficient than I am and posted it before I let him know !!!

Re: List Errata

Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2018 9:22 am
by petedalby
Page 48 - Thracian

Veteran cavalry are described as protected but are costed as armoured. I suspect they should indeed be armoured.

I see an internal ally is compulsory. Similar lists that can have an internal ally - Classical Indian / Gallic - have the proviso that the internal ally bases are deducted from the minima and maxima of the main list. This is missing here. Deliberate or missed?

Please clarify.

Re: List Errata

Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2018 6:22 pm
by terrys
Veteran cavalry are described as protected but are costed as armoured. I suspect they should indeed be armoured.
Yes, they should be armoured.
I see an internal ally is compulsory. Similar lists that can have an internal ally - Classical Indian / Gallic - have the proviso that the internal ally bases are deducted from the minima and maxima of the main list. This is missing here. Deliberate or missed?
Definitely missed. I'm not sure what difference it makes, but I'll add that statement to the next Book 1 errata to be released.