Errata to go in Errata V1.10

[rbodleyscott]

Errata 1.09 is finalised and should go up on fieldofglory.com fairly soon. Please could people put all additional errata not dealt with in V1.09 in this thread, so that I can find them when it comes to the next errata update.

[rbodleyscott]

The Caroline English list in WoR has an "asterisk-option" allowing you to ignore the minimum for Horse.

The list notes state this is represents the army in certain named geographic locations outside England and Ireland, but this could probably be more explicit about whether it's "only" allowed to field no Horse when in those locations, or if they represent some specific examples of when the army fielded no horse.

[kevinj]

Capturing of artillery could use tidying up. Specifically:

1) Should a BG be able to move into contact and capture unsupported artillery in the Manouvre Phase rather than the Impact Phase? This would remedy the anomaly that has always existed that uncontrolled guns are not an enemy BG so can't be charged and also would allow Commanded Shot to capture guns, which they can't following Errata 1.09.

2) Is there any scope to allow removal of captured artillery so that they are not an unreasonable obstacle?

[quackstheking]

Is there any reason why the rules can't be structured so that you have to charge "enemy artillery" to capture it (even if unsupported) but to capture "uncontrolled artillery" can be achieved by moving into it during the manoevre phase.

I feel uncomfortable that charges on unsupported artillery couldn't be intercepted!

Equally I feel uncontrolled artillery should not be an obstacle to movement, if this means blank bases are placed in their position until they are captured and controlled, that is fine by me. That would also stop any teleport issues.

Don

[stecal]

I think the rule for captured artillery should just be changed so that it is simply destroyed (Optionally: at the choice of the attacker or if captured by any but shot or P&S). We are trying to create a special case for an event that happened but one or 2 times in the entire renaissance period. It is the Ren equivalent of the Napoleonic "lancers in the rain" special rules

[daveallen]

This is a question about shifting a BG that is in combat in the movement phase. Can you then also move bases within the BG?

I suspect the answer is no, but page 97 is ambiguous:

Page 97, b.p.2:

The active player makes his expansion or shift first...

Page 97 b.p.3:

Alternatively, instead of expanding, either player can move bases unable to contribute to the combat into a non-front rank position provided they could then contribute to the combat...

My emphasis

I think the way this is written you can't expand and move bases, but you can shift and move bases. Is this right?

[kevinj]

Colonies and Conquest - Early Gustavan Swedish, P101

The Commanded Shot are listed as having Salvo as a Shooting capability only. I believe this should also be an Impact Capability.

[daveallen]

Colonies and Conquest - Early Gustavan Swedish

Clash of Empires, surely.

[kevinj]

Oops, thanks Dave

[alasdair2204]

I think the rule for captured artillery should just be changed so that it is simply destroyed (Optionally: at the choice of the attacker or if captured by any but shot or P&S). We are trying to create a special case for an event that happened but one or 2 times in the entire renaissance period. It is the Ren equivalent of the Napoleonic "lancers in the rain" special rules

Totally agree

would make things a lot simpler

cheers

Alasdair

[timmy1]

I say keep it as it is - hinders those nasty people with all mounted armies...

[ravenflight]

Hi All (in particular Richard),

I've just been going through the Errata, and one thing jumps out at me. It appears that Commanded Shot can give rear support. I'm wondering if they should be able to? I'm not biased one way or another, but just wondering if they should be included in the 'all troops except' definition of 'Battle Troops'. To include Commanded Shot in this would mean that they cannot give rear support - which may not be an altogether bad thing.

In essence, for 12 points you can have a +1 to cohesion tests for a truck load of mounted in front of them. Pretty good value IMHO.

Thoughts?

[daveallen]

Whoops, my mistake...

Dave Allen

[grahambriggs]

Hi All (in particular Richard),

I've just been going through the Errata, and one thing jumps out at me. It appears that Commanded Shot can give rear support. I'm wondering if they should be able to? I'm not biased one way or another, but just wondering if they should be included in the 'all troops except' definition of 'Battle Troops'. To include Commanded Shot in this would mean that they cannot give rear support - which may not be an altogether bad thing.

In essence, for 12 points you can have a +1 to cohesion tests for a truck load of mounted in front of them. Pretty good value IMHO.

Thoughts?

I don't see why not. They are there to help the mounted after all. And if you are daft enough to use them as rear support rather than put them in the line and give the horse better factors then be my guest

[ravenflight]

I don't see why not. They are there to help the mounted after all. And if you are daft enough to use them as rear support rather than put them in the line and give the horse better factors then be my guest

Well, 20 guys with bangsticks can't take enemy artillery, but can give rear support for several hundred horse in a battle line - consider that they can support three BG's (up to 12 bases) of mounted troops.

In many cases Commanded shot will not be able to assist horse (for example when troops are not down at impact (impact Pistol vs Impact pistol) or when it's your impact phase and you want to charge.

[philqw78]

Up now

[rbodleyscott]

Up now

Thanks Phil.