FOGN errata

[bahdahbum]

French Corps d'armée 1812

Rhienbund Infantry : LN average, conscript : 6 PT if they are reformed it should be 7 PT ( yes I am always looking for strange units )

There is no italian ally . They formed the IV corps under rince Eugène with one infantry division + the guard and there was one division with the XI corps .

Wurtemberg : they formed 2 divisions of the III corps .One of infantry with 2 brigades made of 2 line regiments, 1 light bataillon and one brigade made of 2 light bataillons + one cavalry bataillon with 2 cheveau léger regiment + 2 chasseur à cheval regiment ( latter they will be separated ) .

Yet Italian and Wurtemberg do not appear as possible ally in the 1812 army list .

[Astronomican]

What examples are there of cossacks engaging Uhlans at the squadron level or higher?

A Polish Uhlan Regiment under General Konopka was attacked by Cossacks near Slonim. The Cossacks dispersed the regiment, killing many, and taking a large number of prisoners.

At Mir, Cossacks defeated the 3rd, 15th and 16th Polish Uhlans - the 3rd Uhlans were wipe out. The Cossacks were supported by regular Russian cavalry.

But i recall lots of riding around not fighting by the cossacks.

In 1812, the Grodno Hussars, with Cossacks on the flanks, defeated Polish and French Hussars at Drouia. The Poles and French fled with the Cossacks in pursuit, harassing them at every opportunity. The Cossacks' prisoners were sent to General Wittgenstein.

Three Cossack regiments defeated the Polish 1st Chasseurs at Romanov. They were supported by Russian Hussars, Dragoons, Uhlans and horse artillery.

In October 1813 near Kassel, three Cossack regiments destroyed the Hussar Regiment ‘Jerome’.

As for being a nuisance, over 3500 Young Guard were harassed by 800 Cossacks at Langengebode, on the road to Hanau. The Young Guard were pinned down until, at daybreak, Bavarians arrived and took the Young Guard as POWs.

Cossacks are very useful when the opportunity presents itself - Generals Vandamme and Haxo knew this all too well (both were captured by Cossacks when they rode into the middle of a retreating French infantry column, captured the two officers, and rode away!)


Jimi

[hazelbark]

P53 Firing (when determining whats score to hit on):

2nd Bullet Point in sub table. 'Infantry must start their assault within 1 base width of the front of the firers'

This is not on the QRS - No wonder my assaulting cloumns never seemed to make contact!

Well it sort of does "partly to their front"

Note this doesn't mean the infantry can ONLY assault if they start with one base width. It means if infantry charges in from an off angle this doesn't apply. Creates an odd effect to launch charges in echelon not straight in.

[Chasseur]

Hi,

You cannot assault using an echelon move except in the circumstance listed below:
You can wheel within the first half of your charge move. Then the rest of the move is straight ahead.
There is no echelon move in FOGN, other than the circumstances where you can slide sideways by up to 1 basewidth (p.38).
And the only circumstance you allowed within 2MU of an enemy unit when performing this slide is by the minimum amount to avoid friends.

You will often see players making this mistake where they just do an illegal angle move, rather than doing it by a legal combination of straight ahead and wheels.

Cheers,
John Shaw

[Johndeterreneuve]

So when is the errata actually coming out?

[Johndeterreneuve]

So when is the errata actually coming out?

[hazelbark]

Hi,
You cannot assault using an echelon move except in the circumstance listed below:
You can wheel within the first half of your charge move. Then the rest of the move is straight ahead.
There is no echelon move in FOGN, other than the circumstances where you can slide sideways by up to 1 basewidth (p.38).
And the only circumstance you allowed within 2MU of an enemy unit when performing this slide is by the minimum amount to avoid friends.

You will often see players making this mistake where they just do an illegal angle move, rather than doing it by a legal combination of straight ahead and wheels.

Echelon was not the mechanic but a description.

11223344

___AABBCCDD

Lets ignore the geometry times distance for the moment. But assume the letters are mounted they wheel and charge. A versus 1 B versus 2 and so forth.

[BrettPT]

Hi Terry
A piece of errata.

1. Under assaults on page 28 it says you have to CMT to assault through friends. These can only be skirmishers, artillery, or non-broken infantry of same division. [so CMT to assault through these troops]

2. The CMT table on page 44 however says you take a CMT if assaulting through friends who are not skirmishers, artillery or infantry of the same division. [so no CMT to assault through these troops]

3. The QRF says an assault through friends needs CMT unless they are skirmishers, artillery etc.
[so no CMT to assault through these troops].

Do you need to take a CMT to assault through friendly skirmishers/artillery and infantry of same division?
I assume yes, as otherwise the line on the QRF and pg 44 is superflous as you cannot charge through troops other than sk/art/inf of same div in any case (page 29).

Cheers
Brett

[deadtorius]

If they are from the same division it is simple, if from a different division it is a complex to pass through friends.
I think skirmishers and artillery are always simple to pass through regardless.

[Blathergut]

Hi Terry
A piece of errata.

1. Under assaults on page 28 it says you have to CMT to assault through friends. These can only be skirmishers, artillery, or non-broken infantry of same division. [so CMT to assault through these troops]

2. The CMT table on page 44 however says you take a CMT if assaulting through friends who are not skirmishers, artillery or infantry of the same division. [so no CMT to assault through these troops]

3. The QRF says an assault through friends needs CMT unless they are skirmishers, artillery etc.
[so no CMT to assault through these troops].

Do you need to take a CMT to assault through friendly skirmishers/artillery and infantry of same division?
I assume yes, as otherwise the line on the QRF and pg 44 is superflous as you cannot charge through troops other than sk/art/inf of same div in any case (page 29).

Cheers
Brett

Any official word on this? The charts seem to be at odds with pp. 28-29. It would seem the word 'not' should not be in the line on the charts.

[terrys]

1. Under assaults on page 28 it says you have to CMT to assault through friends. These can only be skirmishers, artillery, or non-broken infantry of same division. [so CMT to assault through these troops]

2. The CMT table on page 44 however says you take a CMT if assaulting through friends who are not skirmishers, artillery or infantry of the same division. [so no CMT to assault through these troops]

Page 28 is correct.

[terrys]

Bit slow in answeering these but:

Page 34 : example, why unit at the bottom left cannot assault, she could weel 90° and assault the flank ?, or why not ?

You understand the reason why it should/should not assault, but I agree thet the unit as shown should be angled slightly to the left.
I don't think I'll put this in the eraata though - as long as the written rule is clear it won't be needed.

Page 45 : Table, Nothing is writen for "Artillery only" "unlimber" "steady or disorder" : so does not need a CMT or is it a "any another allowed move, manoeuver, or formation change not listed as simple" (page 44) and so need a CMT.

It should be "Simple"

Page 125 : Table, I think a column is missing for "core cavalry" with the total of maximum base (as for" core infantry")

No, this is correct. There is no 'joint' maximum for the cavalry, just a single small unit of each.

[terrys]

It says you must have a skirmisher attachment for evey infantry or mixed division. As landwehr are not allowed skirmisher attachments, does this mean you cannot field a Division of only landwehr infantry?

Don

correct - No entire division of Landwher is allowed. (You mean you'd want one ?)

[nosher]

How far away is an official errata?

I am really struggling (not just in this thread - but in others too) to keep track of what has been agreed as an errata and what hasn't

Some of the errata questions dont appear to have had official answers which makes things even more confusing.

[paris]

Hi all

Page 133 - 3rd bullet says Jaegers and Grenzers including all skirmisher attachments must all be in the same mixed division

Page 134 Attachments - Skirmishers Only in a mixed division with no light infantry

Do I get something wrong?

[Blathergut]

Hi all

Page 133 - 3rd bullet says Jaegers and Grenzers including all skirmisher attachments must all be in the same mixed division

Page 134 Attachments - Skirmishers Only in a mixed division with no light infantry

Do I get something wrong?

You got nothing wrong. It means:

a) a mixed division with all the Jaegers and Grenzers if you take any
or
b) you have 1 mixed division with all your skirmisher attachments in that one division

You just can't have both types...it's either/or

[paris]

Thanks alot Blathergut - that settles it all

[hazelbark]

p 95 River and stream.

Clearly a lot of these are meant for both rivers and streams. But they dont' specify here.

p 98 does for placement.

[PerryN]

I've found a couple of conflicts that do not seem to have been commented on by anyone else. Could someone please point me in the right direction if I'm wrong or add them to the list of potential errata?

In the sample Austrian list, p133 implies that skirmish attachments of jaegers and grenzers must be in the same mixed division as other jaegers and grenzers, while the note in the skirmisher attachment section on p134 says skirmish attachments may only be in a mixed division without light infantry (jaegers and grenzers?).

The skirmishers attachment section on p88 refers to a picture of a unit in Tactical formation "as shown below". But I can't find any such picture.

Nigel.

[Blathergut]

I've found a couple of conflicts that do not seem to have been commented on by anyone else. Could someone please point me in the right direction if I'm wrong or add them to the list of potential errata?

In the sample Austrian list, p133 implies that skirmish attachments of jaegers and grenzers must be in the same mixed division as other jaegers and grenzers, while the note in the skirmisher attachment section on p134 says skirmish attachments may only be in a mixed division without light infantry (jaegers and grenzers?).

The skirmishers attachment section on p88 refers to a picture of a unit in Tactical formation "as shown below". But I can't find any such picture.

Nigel.

This question was answered a couple posts up. The notes mean that you either:

a) have one division (only) with the jaegers and grenzers and no skirmishers

or

b) have one division (only) with no jaegers and grenzers (hence none in the army) and all skirmisher attachments are in this one division (but you can have as many as you have inf. units to attach them too.