Yes please to a version 2 of FOGN, as has been discussed there are several parts that need more re-working. I would again make make a plea for simplification, where sensible and possible. Several others have already noted the inability to play games without reference to the rules, we probably can't ...

Brett yes I think a very good summary of how we should approach occupation of buildings (villages). One of the very good features of FOGN is villages changing hands several times in a game as happened in history. There may be a place for a more significant building, but I feel that three classes is ...

Less is more perhaps? There is much discussion on changes and ideas for extra rules, but is there is any opportunity to simplify some of the complexities in the rules, areas where there are lots of rules or complexity but to little effect? For example in how many games do gunners, having abandoned t...

A second edition would be fantastic, but please change the typeface. Results of initiative: At the moment the initiative result determines who's attacker/defender and whether they get an extra unit, but it does not affect the choice of battlefield, the terrain remains fixed. Perhaps the player with ...

Yes my thoughts also.... but you can always hope!

Page 104 Austrian Reserve Corps I think there is an inconsistency in the core cavalry section with Cuirassiers not covered in the Dec 2014 errata? The cost of the second row Cuirassiers - Heavy cavalry, Superior, Drilled, Shock is costed at 20 points. I think it should be 17 (10+4+3) However, is it ...

Austrian Army Corps 1812

Page 62. Points cost of Grenadiers should be 10 not 13

Yes sorry, I was fixated on the word support and got carried away. We've been wrestling to construct a melee combat support reference table to try and cover all the support situations wrt position,formation,terrain etc as we have trouble trying to remember when support does and does not count. I'd a...

Yes you are quite correct I was referring to rear support in combat. I had not remembered that conscripts suffer from the same issue if they are in square and taking a cohesion test.

I think the rear support for squares does seem to be potentially an anomaly in the rules. One minute a unit in tactical will count an appropriate unit to its rear as support, but form square and plop, its no longer supported as though the supporting unit had just vanished. Why? It is a game mechanis...

I think it would be an excellent idea to give an extended line of infantry more dice at short range, whether Reformed or unreformed infantry. The " single rank " page 107 definition is clearly intended to represent the units within the brigade being able to bring a higher proportion of mus...

We had a campaign battle that involved a city which we represented by a 4 by 4 group of buildings in base contact with each other (so close as defined on P77). The French infantry were trying to fight their way through the buildings opposed by Prussian infantry. I believe to charge from one building...

Page 81 - The maximum for Middle Guard (6) is insufficient to form a Middle Guard Division as per Customised Army bullet 3 and composition of divisions page 158. ( unless it has 2 arty units as per bullet 6) Checking Bowden it seems the Middle guard was subsumed into the Young guard during this camp...

Terry's additional words are really useful many thanks. Though I am unclear what happens if the target of the assault has no fire dice e.g If the target of the assault evades or forms square, facing the wrong way etc. The prerequisite mentioned on page 51, supporting fire para contains the phase &qu...

In our most recent game we had a revolving door battle with cavalry threatening the LOC. However, in the game there was an infantry unit in square interposed between LoC and an opposing cavalry unit and the infantry unit was less than 2" from the LoC. (but not touching the LoC) Would the presen...

The Russian Army in the Balkans list P 128 E&E has maximum arty of 2 for each of med and hvy, but unit sizes of 2 -3. I presume the maximums should be increased to 3 for both types ?

This does not seem to have been pick up in the July Errata hopefully though in time for the next errata.

Brilliant! look forward to them.

many thanks

Have these amendments made it into an official errata or FAQ yet? I've had a check but can't find any reference to the changes to fortification rules. Having just discovered the benefits of fortifications for my Russians, I'm keen to see the amendments added to the official errata. Our game earlier ...

Many thanks for the confirmation, that's our understanding of the rules.

and yes your right it was a regular light cavalry unit screening the rest of the light cavalry division as it raced towards our guns. Very colourful.

From a game last night I think we found a contradictory rule applying to arty firing through skirmishers. Our opponents had neatly used a light cavalry unit in a single rank (skirmish formation) to screen their limbered horse arty at long range until it could unlimber. So shooting at it we applied, ...