List Errata

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Nov 21, 2017 9:30 pm

Whare the territory types for Warring States Chinese? It mentions Western Han only

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Tue Nov 21, 2017 9:34 pm

Agricultural, Developed and Hilly would be a good bet.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Tue Nov 21, 2017 10:12 pm

Not until official

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:21 am

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?

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:30 am

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.

terrys · Post by **terrys** » Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:40 am

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.

grahambriggs · Post by **grahambriggs** » Fri Dec 01, 2017 5:10 pm

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.

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Fri Dec 01, 2017 6:13 pm

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?

notrum · Post by **notrum** » Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:27 pm

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

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:02 pm

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.

terrys · Post by **terrys** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 12:02 pm

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.

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:44 pm

Thanks Terry

shadowdragon · Post by **shadowdragon** » Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:47 am

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?

grahambriggs · Post by **grahambriggs** » Wed Dec 06, 2017 10:13 pm

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.

madaxeman · Post by **madaxeman** » Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:58 am

Current version of the list errata now up on the bhgs website

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Thu Dec 07, 2017 7:48 am

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.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Thu Dec 07, 2017 7:58 am

petedalby wrote:Sadly

"Inevitably" would be a better word

terrys · Post by **terrys** » Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:26 pm

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 !!!

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Sat Jan 20, 2018 9:22 am

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.

terrys · Post by **terrys** » Wed Jan 24, 2018 6:22 pm

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.

List Errata

List Errata

Re: List Errata

Re: List Errata

Re: List Errata

Re: List Errata

Re: List Errata

Re: List Errata

Re: List Errata

Re: List Errata

Re: List Errata

Re: List Errata

Re: List Errata

Re: List Errata

Re: List Errata

Re: List Errata

Re: List Errata

Re: List Errata

Re: List Errata

Re: List Errata

Re: List Errata