Errata for Errata v1.11

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

Moderators: hammy, Slitherine Core, FOGR Design

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22234
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Errata for Errata v1.11

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

kevinj wrote:It also does not resolve the issue of how uncontrolled guns can be recaptured as they are not an enemy BG.

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

Re: Errata for Errata v1.11

Post by kevinj » Thu Mar 06, 2014 9:27 am

Clash of Empires - 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.

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

Re: Errata for Errata v1.11

Post by kevinj » Fri May 02, 2014 1:22 pm

As in Fog AM, the visibility of troops shooting from a gully needs to be clarified.

peterrjohnston
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 1506
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 11:51 am

Re: Errata for Errata v1.11

Post by peterrjohnston » Mon May 12, 2014 9:45 am

Later Thirty Years’ War German

The main list table has been modified for post-1635 (number of Determined Horse bases), but the allies list table hasn't. Should it not be "*4-12" and "4-12" for the first two rows of total bases?

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 for Errata v1.11

Post by quackstheking » Sun Jun 22, 2014 8:33 pm

Can RBS please clarify (preferably before Britcon), do villages block line of sight for Artillery firing at targets beyond.

In the absence of any guidance in the book, the RAW suggest artillery can see and shoot at targets beyond villages!

Don

benjones1211
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 327
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 8:45 am

Re: Errata for Errata v1.11

Post by benjones1211 » Mon Jun 23, 2014 7:22 am

And actually if the village is small and one unit is not entirely in on one side and the other is not entirely in on the other side they can shoot through the village at up to 6". Going by the Scottish interpretation.

Ben

benjones1211
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 327
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 8:45 am

Re: Errata for Errata v1.11

Post by benjones1211 » Mon Jun 23, 2014 7:25 am

Also with the next set of errata is it possible to have two documents, one the full set of errata, and two just the new errata. or have the new errata marked as such, as going through the whole lot to find a few new items is getting tiring.

Thanks Ben

spotteddog
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 826
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:17 pm

Re: Errata for Errata v1.11

Post by spotteddog » Mon Jun 23, 2014 7:58 am

benjones1211 wrote:And actually if the village is small and one unit is not entirely in on one side and the other is not entirely in on the other side they can shoot through the village at up to 6". Going by the Scottish interpretation.

Ben
I think "we" are going with artillery being able to shoot through/over villages based on them being a humble collection of sheds and such like. When I see "we" I mean all 4 of us in Perth! My initial take was that artillery shouldn't be able to shoot over/through but I was gunned down like a dog (see what I did there?). I am not bothered about what the final decision is but it would be nice to have a common understanding.

HH

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 for Errata v1.11

Post by quackstheking » Mon Jun 23, 2014 9:04 am

But the sheds can't be that"humble" if once you're among them you can only see 2"!!! :shock:

Don

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

Re: Errata for Errata v1.11

Post by kevinj » Mon Jun 23, 2014 9:34 am

If you want to debate this, that should happen in it's own thread.

However, this does raise another issue that could use clarification via the errata:

If a terrain feature does not block line of sight, but is capable of concealing troops, can other troops beyond it be shot at, effectively over the concealed troops. Specifically this would include Dragoons in an Enclosed Field, or anyone in a Gully or Village.

And while we're at it, do we need to clarify whether an Impassable blocks Line of Sight? Since this can be a lake or quarry (which wouldn't) or extra steep hills (which would), is it the choice of the person who places it? Can it have parts that block visibility and parts that don't?

benjones1211
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 327
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 8:45 am

Re: Errata for Errata v1.11

Post by benjones1211 » Mon Jun 23, 2014 9:56 am

IE. the waterfall in the middle of nowhere terrain piece which you use so effectively (or not)

Ben

spotteddog
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 826
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:17 pm

Re: Errata for Errata v1.11

Post by spotteddog » Mon Jun 23, 2014 10:28 am

kevinj wrote:If you want to debate this, that should happen in it's own thread.

However, this does raise another issue that could use clarification via the errata:

If a terrain feature does not block line of sight, but is capable of concealing troops, can other troops beyond it be shot at, effectively over the concealed troops. Specifically this would include Dragoons in an Enclosed Field, or anyone in a Gully or Village.

And while we're at it, do we need to clarify whether an Impassable blocks Line of Sight? Since this can be a lake or quarry (which wouldn't) or extra steep hills (which would), is it the choice of the person who places it? Can it have parts that block visibility and parts that don't?
Itd be great to bottom these out before Britcon whatever the thread. I don't get the impression anyone is overly fussed about what we agree to go with if we can't get an errata. It's just that we'd all benefit from a common understanding before we play. Does it really have to come down to players reading a checklist and agreeing before each game or can we not all "sign up" before Britcon? Am I being too ambitious?

My tuppence

Does a village block line of sight - No (after "gentle" persuasion)
Does an enclosed field with hidden troops block line of sight - No
Does a gully with hidden troops block line of sight - No
Does a lake block line of sight as an impassible - No
Does a quarry block line of sight as an impassible - No
Does a hill block line of sight as an impassible - Yes
Can an impassible have bits which block line of sight and bits which don't - No (too complicated for me)

Everyone ok with that or .......

HH

marshalney2000
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1175
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:14 am

Re: Errata for Errata v1.11

Post by marshalney2000 » Mon Jun 23, 2014 1:40 pm

I think the interpretation on villages is not a Scottish one but an interpretation based on putting aside pre-conceived notions and reading what it says in the rules. I believe the authors have in their description of a village clearly stated their belief that a 16th/17th Century village was a small fairly spread out affair with bits of open garden and animal pasture which does not block line of sight to troops behind.
I take the point that this would also require troops inside to be fairly widely dispersed amongst the sheds and buildings but the rules again clearly state that it does severely disorder/ disorder dependent on troop type and restricts visibility to these troops. So once again the rules are quite clear. At the end of the day they do not get a great deal of advantage from being in there.
From a personal point of view I would like artillery for example to be able to fire at troops occupying buildings from beyond 2 inches if these troops had betrayed their position by firing out but the rules clearly rule against me here as well.
The question re impassible is an interesting one. As far as the rules, it would seem you can shoot over an impassible piece regardless of how it is portrayed and I suspect the authors have decided to avoid having to create different rules for different types of impassible terrain and make it a generic situation that YOU CANNAE GO IN and that's it. I can understand why as I am sure we could have all sorts of interesting debates if for example my quarry was surrounded by a thick belt of trees but yours was not. Even then I am ignoring the fact that I can shoot over your waterfall because the armour of the troops behind was reflected in the water thereby disclosing position.

As for Britcon, I am totally against suggestions we all have a few vote on this that and the other. If we have a problem during a game then we have an umpire to refer to and he will then refer to the rules as printed and officially amended.

marshalney2000
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1175
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:14 am

Re: Errata for Errata v1.11

Post by marshalney2000 » Mon Jun 23, 2014 1:40 pm

I think the interpretation on villages is not a Scottish one but an interpretation based on putting aside pre-conceived notions and reading what it says in the rules. I believe the authors have in their description of a village clearly stated their belief that a 16th/17th Century village was a small fairly spread out affair with bits of open garden and animal pasture which does not block line of sight to troops behind.
I take the point that this would also require troops inside to be fairly widely dispersed amongst the sheds and buildings but the rules again clearly state that it does severely disorder/ disorder dependent on troop type and restricts visibility to these troops. So once again the rules are quite clear. At the end of the day they do not get a great deal of advantage from being in there.
From a personal point of view I would like artillery for example to be able to fire at troops occupying buildings from beyond 2 inches if these troops had betrayed their position by firing out but the rules clearly rule against me here as well.
The question re impassible is an interesting one. As far as the rules, it would seem you can shoot over an impassible piece regardless of how it is portrayed and I suspect the authors have decided to avoid having to create different rules for different types of impassible terrain and make it a generic situation that YOU CANNAE GO IN and that's it. I can understand why as I am sure we could have all sorts of interesting debates if for example my quarry was surrounded by a thick belt of trees but yours was not. Even then I am ignoring the fact that I can shoot over your waterfall because the armour of the troops behind was reflected in the water thereby disclosing position.

As for Britcon, I am totally against suggestions we all have a few vote on this that and the other. If we have a problem during a game then we have an umpire to refer to and he will then refer to the rules as printed and officially amended.

marshalney2000
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1175
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:14 am

Re: Errata for Errata v1.11

Post by marshalney2000 » Mon Jun 23, 2014 1:42 pm

Sorry about the duplicate posting. So good I sent it twice.
John

spotteddog
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 826
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:17 pm

Re: Errata for Errata v1.11

Post by spotteddog » Mon Jun 23, 2014 9:10 pm

Do you agree that any troops hidden in said this spread out affair of bits of open garden and pasture (village) block shooting over John?
HH

marshalney2000
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1175
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:14 am

Re: Errata for Errata v1.11

Post by marshalney2000 » Mon Jun 23, 2014 9:37 pm

Hunter, with extreme reluctance and on a matter of principle, I will partially agree with your comments. If enemy occupy the village then I would agree that I cannot shoot over the part of the village the figures occupy. On the other hand if they only occupy part of the frontage of the village then I can possibly draw a line of visibility through other parts of the village providing my arc of fire is valid for the vacant part.
It does however raise another interesting point in that if the artillery know that the village is occupied and cannot fire over it then why the hell can they not fire at the occupying troops from further away than two inches? Seems crazy but that is what the rules say.
I think at some stage a bit of an audit of the whole visibility issues with a healthy dose of common sense would be worthwhile. Not for Britcon I hasten to add as I would hate to have a rush to judgement on this important issue. Until then we play by the rules.
John

marshalney2000
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1175
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:14 am

Re: Errata for Errata v1.11

Post by marshalney2000 » Mon Jun 23, 2014 9:44 pm

Kevin, another point on impassable terrain. This is shown as a terrain classification in itself and there is no suggestion that this terrain type takes any attributes from any other terrain classification type such as steep hills. If they are supposed to then what additional attributes do I get if I have a quarry?
John

spotteddog
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 826
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:17 pm

Re: Errata for Errata v1.11

Post by spotteddog » Tue Jun 24, 2014 8:29 am

marshalney2000 wrote:Hunter, with extreme reluctance and on a matter of principle, I will partially agree with your comments. If enemy occupy the village then I would agree that I cannot shoot over the part of the village the figures occupy. On the other hand if they only occupy part of the frontage of the village then I can possibly draw a line of visibility through other parts of the village providing my arc of fire is valid for the vacant part.
It does however raise another interesting point in that if the artillery know that the village is occupied and cannot fire over it then why the hell can they not fire at the occupying troops from further away than two inches? Seems crazy but that is what the rules say.
I think at some stage a bit of an audit of the whole visibility issues with a healthy dose of common sense would be worthwhile. Not for Britcon I hasten to add as I would hate to have a rush to judgement on this important issue. Until then we play by the rules.
John
That seems fair since its the overhead shooting rules that seem to be in play here. It does becomes more complicated, off course, if troops are in ambush and have discretion as to placement on a marker. Ooops - another can of worms!

Can't help thinking it'd be simpler to say that a village blocks line of sight - but you have made it clear that is not the case.

HH

spotteddog
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 826
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:17 pm

Re: Errata for Errata v1.11

Post by spotteddog » Tue Jun 24, 2014 8:32 am

marshalney2000 wrote:Kevin, another point on impassable terrain. This is shown as a terrain classification in itself and there is no suggestion that this terrain type takes any attributes from any other terrain classification type such as steep hills. If they are supposed to then what additional attributes do I get if I have a quarry?
John
You get to shoot over/through it I guess. As distinct from a waterfall (which you can't - or can per the rules). :lol:

HH

Post Reply

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