New errata (V1.17) available

Ghaznavid · Post by **Ghaznavid** » Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:33 pm

A new official errata (v1.17) is now available for DL from the FoG website.
You can download it here.

KillingZoe · Post by **KillingZoe** » Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:16 pm

For the next version: Today I found another error:

Book: Empire of the Dragon
Pake: 74
List: Tibetan Allies

The allied commander is given the cost of a normal FC/TC (50/35) instead of the cost of an ally (40/25)

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 7:12 am

KillingZoe wrote:For the next version: Today I found another error:

Book: Empire of the Dragon
Pake: 74
List: Tibetan Allies

The allied commander is given the cost of a normal FC/TC (50/35) instead of the cost of an ally (40/25)

A number of the EotD lists have this error

gozerius · Post by **gozerius** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 3:48 am

In LS, all the German lists use "impact" instead of "close combat" for close combat capabilities.
Later German City allies list Fussknechte should be protected, average/poor.

Mehrunes · Post by **Mehrunes** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 3:57 pm

Is it intended that Campanian allies between 337BC and 275BC don't have to choose infantry?

Antoshisamazing · Post by **Antoshisamazing** » Sun Feb 14, 2010 5:16 am

Unfortunatly I think we're still missing one ally list as I don't see an Italian Ostrogothic ally list in the errata.

von.Lucky · Post by **von.Lucky** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:03 am

Can someone please clarify the point costing (both) for the "Free Canton javelinmen" in the Medieval German City Leagues list from Lost Scrolls (p 64)?

2 points for protected LF seems like a great bargain.

Ghaznavid · Post by **Ghaznavid** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:35 am

von.Lucky wrote:Can someone please clarify the point costing (both) for the "Free Canton javelinmen" in the Medieval German City Leagues list from Lost Scrolls (p 64)?

2 points for protected LF seems like a great bargain.

The protected option shouldn't exist, so the point cost is irrelevant (as well as wrong). Not sure where it comes from either, it should be (and was originally) an option to take them as Average or Poor.

von.Lucky · Post by **von.Lucky** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:43 am

Thanks Karsten the night owl,

So average unprotected 4 points / poor unprotected 2 points?

Ghaznavid · Post by **Ghaznavid** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 4:14 am

von.Lucky wrote:Thanks Karsten the night owl,

So average unprotected 4 points / poor unprotected 2 points?

Correct.

von.Lucky · Post by **von.Lucky** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 4:22 am

Excellent - thanks.