Errata to go in Errata V1.10

General discussion forum for anything related to Field of Glory Renaissance Wars.

Moderators: hammy, Slitherine Core, FOGR Design

Post Reply
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22066
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Errata to go in Errata V1.10

Post by rbodleyscott » Mon Jan 28, 2013 4:48 pm

Errata 1.09 is finalised and should go up on fieldofglory.com fairly soon. Please could people put all additional errata not dealt with in V1.09 in this thread, so that I can find them when it comes to the next errata update.

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22066
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Errata to go in Errata 1.10

Post by rbodleyscott » Mon Jan 28, 2013 4:52 pm

madaxeman wrote:The Caroline English list in WoR has an "asterisk-option" allowing you to ignore the minimum for Horse.

The list notes state this is represents the army in certain named geographic locations outside England and Ireland, but this could probably be more explicit about whether it's "only" allowed to field no Horse when in those locations, or if they represent some specific examples of when the army fielded no horse.

kevinj
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:21 am
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Re: Errata to go in Errata V1.10

Post by kevinj » Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:14 pm

Capturing of artillery could use tidying up. Specifically:

1) Should a BG be able to move into contact and capture unsupported artillery in the Manouvre Phase rather than the Impact Phase? This would remedy the anomaly that has always existed that uncontrolled guns are not an enemy BG so can't be charged and also would allow Commanded Shot to capture guns, which they can't following Errata 1.09.

2) Is there any scope to allow removal of captured artillery so that they are not an unreasonable obstacle?

quackstheking
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 844
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:41 pm
Location: Hertfordshire, England

Re: Errata to go in Errata V1.10

Post by quackstheking » Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:45 pm

Is there any reason why the rules can't be structured so that you have to charge "enemy artillery" to capture it (even if unsupported) but to capture "uncontrolled artillery" can be achieved by moving into it during the manoevre phase.

I feel uncomfortable that charges on unsupported artillery couldn't be intercepted!

Equally I feel uncontrolled artillery should not be an obstacle to movement, if this means blank bases are placed in their position until they are captured and controlled, that is fine by me. That would also stop any teleport issues.

Don

stecal
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 316
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 4:21 am
Location: Philadelphia, PA USA
Contact:

Re: Errata to go in Errata V1.10

Post by stecal » Fri Feb 01, 2013 4:30 pm

I think the rule for captured artillery should just be changed so that it is simply destroyed (Optionally: at the choice of the attacker or if captured by any but shot or P&S). We are trying to create a special case for an event that happened but one or 2 times in the entire renaissance period. It is the Ren equivalent of the Napoleonic "lancers in the rain" special rules
Clear the battlefield and let me see
All the profit from our victory.

daveallen
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 542
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 9:21 am

Re: Errata to go in Errata V1.10

Post by daveallen » Mon May 20, 2013 8:53 am

This is a question about shifting a BG that is in combat in the movement phase. Can you then also move bases within the BG?

I suspect the answer is no, but page 97 is ambiguous:
Page 97, b.p.2:

The active player makes his expansion or shift first...
Page 97 b.p.3:

Alternatively, instead of expanding, either player can move bases unable to contribute to the combat into a non-front rank position provided they could then contribute to the combat...

My emphasis
I think the way this is written you can't expand and move bases, but you can shift and move bases. Is this right?

kevinj
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:21 am
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Re: Errata to go in Errata V1.10

Post by kevinj » Mon May 20, 2013 9:04 am

Colonies and Conquest - Early Gustavan Swedish, P101

The Commanded Shot are listed as having Salvo as a Shooting capability only. I believe this should also be an Impact Capability.

daveallen
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 542
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 9:21 am

Re: Errata to go in Errata V1.10

Post by daveallen » Mon May 20, 2013 3:27 pm

kevinj wrote:Colonies and Conquest - Early Gustavan Swedish
Clash of Empires, surely. :)

kevinj
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:21 am
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Re: Errata to go in Errata V1.10

Post by kevinj » Mon May 20, 2013 3:36 pm

Oops, thanks Dave :oops:

alasdair2204
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 600
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 1:40 pm

Re: Errata to go in Errata V1.10

Post by alasdair2204 » Mon May 20, 2013 4:21 pm

stecal wrote:I think the rule for captured artillery should just be changed so that it is simply destroyed (Optionally: at the choice of the attacker or if captured by any but shot or P&S). We are trying to create a special case for an event that happened but one or 2 times in the entire renaissance period. It is the Ren equivalent of the Napoleonic "lancers in the rain" special rules
Totally agree

would make things a lot simpler

cheers

Alasdair

timmy1
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Posts: 3436
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:39 pm
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, England

Re: Errata to go in Errata V1.10

Post by timmy1 » Mon May 20, 2013 6:59 pm

I say keep it as it is - hinders those nasty people with all mounted armies...

ravenflight
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am

Re: Errata to go in Errata V1.10

Post by ravenflight » Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:34 pm

Hi All (in particular Richard),

I've just been going through the Errata, and one thing jumps out at me. It appears that Commanded Shot can give rear support. I'm wondering if they should be able to? I'm not biased one way or another, but just wondering if they should be included in the 'all troops except' definition of 'Battle Troops'. To include Commanded Shot in this would mean that they cannot give rear support - which may not be an altogether bad thing.

In essence, for 12 points you can have a +1 to cohesion tests for a truck load of mounted in front of them. Pretty good value IMHO.

Thoughts?

daveallen
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 542
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 9:21 am

Re: Errata to go in Errata V1.10

Post by daveallen » Mon Jun 17, 2013 9:09 am

Whoops, my mistake...

Dave Allen

grahambriggs
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2978
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Re: Errata to go in Errata V1.10

Post by grahambriggs » Mon Jun 17, 2013 10:35 am

ravenflight wrote:Hi All (in particular Richard),

I've just been going through the Errata, and one thing jumps out at me. It appears that Commanded Shot can give rear support. I'm wondering if they should be able to? I'm not biased one way or another, but just wondering if they should be included in the 'all troops except' definition of 'Battle Troops'. To include Commanded Shot in this would mean that they cannot give rear support - which may not be an altogether bad thing.

In essence, for 12 points you can have a +1 to cohesion tests for a truck load of mounted in front of them. Pretty good value IMHO.

Thoughts?
I don't see why not. They are there to help the mounted after all. And if you are daft enough to use them as rear support rather than put them in the line and give the horse better factors then be my guest

ravenflight
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am

Re: Errata to go in Errata V1.10

Post by ravenflight » Mon Jun 17, 2013 10:59 am

grahambriggs wrote: I don't see why not. They are there to help the mounted after all. And if you are daft enough to use them as rear support rather than put them in the line and give the horse better factors then be my guest
Well, 20 guys with bangsticks can't take enemy artillery, but can give rear support for several hundred horse in a battle line - consider that they can support three BG's (up to 12 bases) of mounted troops.

In many cases Commanded shot will not be able to assist horse (for example when troops are not down at impact (impact Pistol vs Impact pistol) or when it's your impact phase and you want to charge.

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8621
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Re: Errata to go in Errata V1.10

Post by philqw78 » Thu Dec 05, 2013 8:30 pm

Up now
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22066
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Errata to go in Errata V1.10

Post by rbodleyscott » Fri Dec 06, 2013 11:00 am

philqw78 wrote:Up now
Thanks Phil.

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory : Renaissance Wars : General Discussion”