Cities of Gold errata

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 6:13 am

I have started this thread to capture the errors in Cities of Gold Companion 6.

Page 13, Arawak.

Under Arawak Allies on page 12 it states 'allied commander contingents... troops in the contingent are deducted from the minima and maxima in the main list'.

However for both 'Seperately deployed veteran warriors' and 'Warriors' the main list has the option to have them armed with Javelins, Light Spear, Swordsmen, where as the allies do not have that option, instead having Javelins, Light Spear. The points are right but it seems odd and can muck up the numbers.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 8:27 pm

Page 25, Tlaxcalan, Huaxtex or Otomi.

'Because of their morale ascendency over the natives, we rate all of the conquistador troops as Superior'. Presuming that this refers to the troops on Page 27 listed as 'Spanish' (though this is not stated) this is incorrect as there are Spanish troops as Average and as Elite.

Also in the starter army on the same page it says that the C-in-C is a 'Field Commander (conquistador)' but the list special instructions on page 26 refer to C-in-C being Spanish.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 6:55 pm

Page 39, Mayan Starter Army.

Slingers are listed as 'Unarmoured, Undrilled Light Foot'. Undrilled is (sadly) not a term that appears in FoGR. Is this a hangover from the FoG:AM list, perchance? Should it read 'Unarmoured Light Foot'?

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 7:14 pm

Page 44 Inca.

'Spanish... we rate all of the conquistador troops as Superior'. Assuming this means the conquistador troops in the list are the Spanish, this does not match page 47 which has Spanish as Elite and as Average as well.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 7:15 pm

Page 23

Aztec. Cuachicqueh are listed as Core Troops but they have total bases 0-12 which makes them Optional Troops.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 7:17 pm

Page 36

Chinantec Archers and Slingers are both in Core Troops but are both allowed 0 bases so should be in an Optional Troops section (currently not present).

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 8:09 pm

You're getting carried away.

Core does not mean compulsory - the list books have a lot of core troops which you can have 0 bases of.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 5:06 pm

And I disagreed then as well...

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 5:10 pm

Page 74, Plains Culture

In both the main list and the Allies, Horsed warriors Only from 1659, Light Horse, Unarmoured, Average, Bow, Light Lancers, Swordsmen are listed at 9 points per base. It should be 10 point per base.

In the Allies list

'
"Flail"
&men
'

should read
'
"Flail" men
'

as it does in the main list.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 5:14 am

Page 89, Dutch or English Colonial American

Mounted Militiamen, Only from 1635 are: Dragoons, Unarmoured, Average, Carbine at 7 points per base. However Carbine is not listed under Foot Combat Capabilities of the points system on Page 189 of the main rules. Therefore the cost per base should be 5.

However Page 167 of the rules defines Carbine as 'cavalry equivalent of the arquebus'. If the Carbine were replaced by Arquebus, the points per base would be correct.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 7:26 am

timmy1 wrote:Page 89, Dutch or English Colonial American

Mounted Militiamen, Only from 1635 are: Dragoons, Unarmoured, Average, Carbine at 7 points per base. However Carbine is not listed under Foot Combat Capabilities of the points system on Page 189 of the main rules. Therefore the cost per base should be 5.

However Page 167 of the rules defines Carbine as 'cavalry equivalent of the arquebus'. If the Carbine were replaced by Arquebus, the points per base would be correct.

Indeed. So that is the error and not the points cost.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 6:52 pm

Page 81, Colonial Spanish

'
The number of Regular infantry battle groups with Armoured pikemen must exceed the number of Regular infantry battle groups with Unarmoured pikemen.
'

However on page 82 'Therefore, from 1550 either the troops marked * are used or the troops marked ** are used, but not both together'. Because the least number of Unarmoured pikemen Regular infantry battle groups that can be chosen is 0, at least 1 BG of Armoured pikemen must be chosen. As all the Armoured pikemen are marked ** it prevents the * option being chosen after 1550.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 7:31 pm

Following on from my previous post, Page 85 Colonial Spanish Allies.

As the Regular infantry with Pike is Total bases '**6-12', Unarmoured pikemen BG can never be chosen. (1 BG of Unarmoured, plus 2 BG of Armoured, is 18 bases.) Additionally the non-Pike Regular infantry cannot be chosed from 1550 for the same reason as in the previous post.

Same logic, different effect.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Tue Aug 02, 2011 4:52 pm

Page 108 Central African - typos only

'Portuguese Colonial allies (Only Kongo from 1494 to1576)' should read 'Portuguese Colonial allies (Only Kongo from 1494 to 1576)'

'Dutch Colonial allies (Only Ndongo or Kongo from 1641 to1648)' should read 'Dutch Colonial allies (Only Ndongo or Kongo from 1641 to 1648)'

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Tue Aug 02, 2011 4:53 pm

Page 118 West African Forest Allies

Allied commander is listed as '0-2'. It should be '1' to be consistent with other lists.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Tue Aug 02, 2011 4:56 pm

I can't claim the credit for this one, just bringing it to this thread.

Page 125, Aviz Portuguese, Ksar El Kabir in 1578 Special Campaign.

Moroccan allies are complusory but there is no North African States allies list in Trade and Treachery.