Slitherine

timmy1 wrote:If this is not the place for my request, please feel free to delete.

1) This is an errata thread, not an amendment thread.
2) If a _glaring_ anomaly rears its head (like the concertinaing pikes thing) then that can reasonably be considered an erratum.
3) The errata sheet is not about altering/correcting play-balance - or sneaking in untested amendments.
4) We weren't even allowed to make points changes to V2 of FOGAM, so forget it for FOGR for now. (Anyway, it is arguably Determined Horse in general that are overpriced, not Polish hussars or Impact Horse capability in particular).
5) MOST IMPORTANT. This errata thread is for Errata only. I am moving inappropriate posts to another thread.

Maniakes wrote:

alasdair2204 wrote:Hi just a thought

when artillery breaks / or is contacted when not supported it is just removed from the table I have played lots of games when we end of with lots of units trying to retake guns etc this causes lots of issues with mounted not being allowed to move etc as well as I just think it would simplify a lot of things without ruining anything, that said i love the rules anyway

cheers

Alasdair

Or "any unit can pass through captured or recaptured artillery, or occupy the same space as captured or recaptured artillery"

Most problems I've seen have come from not being able to pass through , making the artillery an unrealistic road block

Dave P

Aye, I think some version of this could be considered for the Errata sheet.

rbodleyscott wrote: Aye, I think some version of this could be considered for the Errata sheet.

It really is the only part of the rules where people say WTF. A clean up of it in some fashion is in order.

kevinj wrote:Since we seem to have started a shopping list here...

Keils

The modification from the last errata to prevent concertina behaviour could do with some tightening. For example, if due to a base loss in the opponent's turn my (now) 10 base BG is 3-3-3-1, am I allowed to charge in my Impact phase, or must I resolve my formation in my next manouvre phase? Personally, I'd like this to be rectified at the time of the base loss in the same way that an Early Tercio mutates into a later one, but with the same restrictions regarding restricted areas.

Don't have my rules with me but , playing Swiss have pored over them extensively. Richard this follows on from our chat at Britcon.

I think what you are trying to achieve with Kiels is:

- form deep. Hence 2x4 deep filed of pike and friends.
- able to pop out a base either side of heavy weapons/swords.

But i don't think the rules quite do this:

- the current errata says you must form Kiel. But what is Kiel?

1. The general formation rule says all but back rank equal numbers but special formations are an exception.
2. The Kiel rule (an exception) says 2 files of 4 pikes (or friends).

So, it seems, I could have a 16 base Kiel 10 bases wide: two files of 4 deep and eight files one deep. I don't think this is what you are trying to achieve. I suspect what you'd want is that BG in a 4x4 block, albeit it could pop it's heavy weapons guys out.

Would a way to achieve this be to say that a Kiel must obey the general formation rules (except for the heavy weapons guys) and also the Kiel rules? so that GBG of 16 could be 4-4-4-4 or, HW-3-4-4-3-HW

The rules to 'pop out' heavy weapons are a bit broken:

- the rules say different troop types within a mixed BG can form their own rectangles in the BG. But:

1. In the Swiss, the troops type is all determined foot; it's the capabilities that differ. So that actually says you can't pop out the HW guys.
2. The 'each troop type in their own rectangle' wording suggests you can't pop one HW out and not the other (as you'd break their rectangle). Also, it suggests you can't pop one out on either side of the pikes as it again breaks the rectangle but have to do two on one side (which is not what you wanted I think)

Perhaps a way to fix this is a general statement to the effect of "BGs or GBGs consisting of mostly pikes but with 1 or 2 bases of HW or Sw capabilities can always expand a HW or Sw base or bases to a front rank position as long as they end up in side edge contact with a pike base of their BG and were not contibuting to a POA before expansion"

grahambriggs wrote: Would a way to achieve this be to say that a Kiel must obey the general formation rules (except for the heavy weapons guys) and also the Kiel rules? so that GBG of 16 could be 4-4-4-4 or, HW-3-4-4-3-HW

Would it not be easier just to say keils must maintain a formation that is at least as many bases deep as it is wide, except when expanding HW as an overlap? Surely that's what keils are meant to be, deep bodies of troops.

That also automatically covers going into a one element wide column (for roads, etc), with no extra wording needed like in the current amendments.

peterrjohnston wrote:Would it not be easier just to say keils must maintain a formation that is at least as many bases deep as it is wide, except when expanding HW as an overlap? Surely that's what keils are meant to be, deep bodies of troops.

This would allow a kiel of 8 or 10 to occassionally break its kiel status and go 332 or 334. But in my mind that is not particularly critical in favor of simplciity.

It successfully restricts the accordion.

I like it.

hazelbark wrote: This would allow a kiel of 8 or 10 to occassionally break its kiel status and go 332 or 334. But in my mind that is not particularly critical in favor of simplciity.

It successfully restricts the accordion.

My understanding is the accordion tactic is to avoid the artillery POA for 3 or more ranks, and for GBGs to deploy very wide and pick where to advance and contract, right? Both tactics used principally at the start of a game and the moves to where combat commences. So at least as deep as wide prevents both - trying to think of any exception/edge case.

(There's a slight edge case when elites starting at 10 are down to 4 bases so could avoid the artillery POA, but by that point, does it matter? They'll either be in combat or already have captured the guns )

peterrjohnston wrote:My understanding is the accordion tactic is to avoid the artillery POA for 3 or more ranks, and for GBGs to deploy very wide and pick where to advance and contract, right? Both tactics used principally at the start of a game and the moves to where combat commences. So at least as deep as wide prevents both - trying to think of any exception/edge case.

Yep which is why i like your proposal.

Kiels with shot wings would need to be an exception...

Oh, and any Kiel that has expanded it's H/W or swordsmen out as well - and this would need to only apply in combat too otherwise an 4+2 Kiel could go 1-2-2-1. Although that may be a touch late in the day to start worrying...

madaxeman wrote:Oh, and any Kiel that has expanded it's H/W or swordsmen out as well - and this would need to only apply in combat too otherwise an 4+2 Kiel could go 1-2-2-1. Although that may be a touch late in the day to start worrying...

Especially as there is no such thing as a 4+2 Kiel

Army Lists - Clash Of Empires - Later Ottoman Turkish Allies.

BG size for Azaps and Tufekcis is 6-8, but only 0-6 are allowed.

Why not just say a unit eligible to be a Kiel gets the extra vulnerability regardless of its actual formation? Kills the incentive for the "accordian" thing with minimum fuss.

Jhykronos wrote:Why not just say a unit eligible to be a Kiel gets the extra vulnerability regardless of its actual formation? Kills the incentive for the "accordian" thing with minimum fuss.

Because there are other cheesy uses for concertinaing

rbodleyscott wrote:

Jhykronos wrote:Why not just say a unit eligible to be a Kiel gets the extra vulnerability regardless of its actual formation? Kills the incentive for the "accordian" thing with minimum fuss.

Because there are other cheesy uses for concertinaing

The artilery shooting bit is minor. It the ability to really increase manuverability.

Imagine you could put two 12 base kiels 1 deep across the front one behind the other.offset by three bases.
you then can start to shrink down as you advance on the opponent's weak point with far more ease than an opponent who has to wheel to the position.
in 4 moves they are to mid table and have shrunk to a frontage of 4 so nearly in full fighting form.
That's a two foot frontage of the table that you can choose to attack with a lot of non history.

There is a factual error in the Wars of Religion book of army lists where there the Emperor Ferdinand II is referred to throughout as Friedrich II.

rbodleyscott wrote:

madaxeman wrote:Oh, and any Kiel that has expanded it's H/W or swordsmen out as well - and this would need to only apply in combat too otherwise an 4+2 Kiel could go 1-2-2-1. Although that may be a touch late in the day to start worrying...

Especially as there is no such thing as a 4+2 Kiel

Might be as well, in this an errata thread, to call it a keil, lest we tread down the path of the "Lieb" regiments so beloved of Napoleonic wargamers.

Army List: Desert Bedouin

The Camelry BGs come is sizes of 6-8. Not necessarily an erratum but with Tuareg being 4-6 maybe you didn't mean that?

grahambriggs wrote:Army List: Desert Bedouin

The Camelry BGs come is sizes of 6-8. Not necessarily an erratum but with Tuareg being 4-6 maybe you didn't mean that?

It is intentional.

nikgaukroger wrote:

grahambriggs wrote:Army List: Desert Bedouin

The Camelry BGs come is sizes of 6-8. Not necessarily an erratum but with Tuareg being 4-6 maybe you didn't mean that?

It is intentional.

Oh, excellent. Tried the army down the club. Generally a bit rubbish but the big BGs of camels do at least give it some funnies