Slitherine

Yes, that's the problem when you use a trackpad instead of a mouse. My first message got sent before I finished editing.

I quite agree with Blathergut regarding Austrain skirmishers. I'm sure that's what it was intended to say, but as written, it really doesn't.

As a suggestion, for the note re: skirmishers on p134 "Only in a single mixed division which must also contain all light infantry units if any are used. Maximum of ..."

One question regarding the complex move table (p45), are any activities not listed prohibited, or does the third bullet point on p44 (any other allowed move, manoeuvre or formation change not listed as simple) apply?

If they are prohibited, does't that make that bullet point redundant? (given the first bullet point)

Nigel.

hazelbark wrote:

nosher wrote: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.

This is much less than clear now - How does the second bullet relate to "partly to their front"?

'Infantry must start their assault within 1 base width of the front of the firers' describes an awkwardly shapred area including a rectangle one base width deep to the front of the firer and an adjoining quarter circle on either side that is one base width in radius.

If it was "... 1 base width of the area to the front of the firers" it would describe an area extending all the way out in front and one base width on either side, which sounds rather more sensible.

terrys wrote:

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.

So the Assault Phase table on p44 as corrected reads on line 1 "Assault through friends who are Skirmishers, Artilery or are unbroken infantry of the same division" and the next line swaps Cavalry with Infantry. Likewise in the QRS.

MikeHorah wrote: In Spring it's not relevant as the landwehr had not yet been incorporated into the field army in significant numbers and were still being raised and trained by the time of the summer armistice . In 1815 there was a whole Prussian Guard reserve Corps which did not participate in the Waterloo Campaign. We have a list for that Corps and allow for a division of that Corps to be imported into the Prussian Infantry Corps list for 1815

About this Prussian Guard Corps.....does it have the same attachment rules for the normal Prussian lists? Specifically, will it have cavalry attachments? Will it have the mandatory artillery attachment?

I also found another bug - Prussian Guard Cuirassiers are only costed at 17 points, which is wrong according to their attributes on page 92.....they should cost 20 points and it seems the three points for "shock" wasn't factored in.

About this Prussian Guard Corps.....does it have the same attachment rules for the normal Prussian lists? Specifically, will it have cavalry attachments? Will it have the mandatory artillery attachment?

1. Cavalry attachment minimums only apply to Infantry divisions. Prussian Guard can only be in its own mixed division.

2. Artillery attachment minimums apply to all division of any type. As there is no Guard artillery listed, then you will have to have two attachments, one for the infantry and one for the cavalry. This fits very well as there was an 8 gun Guard foot battery and an 8 gun Guard horse battery.

3. Skirmisher attachment minimums also apply to mixed divisions, so your infantry unit will need a skirmisher attachment.

All seems straight forward to me, although the total Guard infantry numbers in 1813 were 5,293 at Leipzig (G. Nafziger) so perhaps 2 small units would be nearer the mark.

Don

Report this postReply with quoteRe: FOGN errata
by terrys » 07 Apr 2012 10:29

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 ?)

Terry,

Sorry for delay in replying, was out in France on holiday.

It would appear we are both wrong, the wording in the list says '(but not usually to Landwehr units).'

And yes I am happy to field an all Landwehr Division, I am sure it will let me down one day, but they were a major part of the army.

Don

The Glossary entry for "Rear Support" (page 107) is not consistent with the rule description on page 57 or the Glossary entry for "Supporting Unit" on page 108. The latter two are consistent, but the Glossary entry for "Supporting Unit" isn't consistent with the rule description for flank support on page 56 even though the Glossary entry would seem to apply to both rear and flank support.

shadowdragon wrote:The Glossary entry for "Rear Support" (page 107) is not consistent with the rule description on page 57 or the Glossary entry for "Supporting Unit" on page 108. The latter two are consistent, but the Glossary entry for "Supporting Unit" isn't consistent with the rule description for flank support on page 56 even though the Glossary entry would seem to apply to both rear and flank support.

Edit: Updated and posted for clarification in new thread on "Support" Definitions Clarifications

Hmmm....increasingly thinking nice rules once you get to know them. But very, very badly laid out and inconsistent. Too many related rules spaced out through the book rather than grouped together, which increases the scope for the errors we're finding.

Perhaps they should rewrite the rules

Wouldn't go that far. But I am finding it a lot easier if I make lots of notes of which rules sections/pages relate to each other. And I have lots of places I've written in a few lines that just need repeating from somewhere else in the book.

At times I feel like ripping pages out and sticking them back in a better sequence.

I would also support a rewrite.

If they do not rewrite they will have to make a very good and long errata available soon !

One question regarding the complex move table (p45), are any activities not listed prohibited, or does the third bullet point on p44 (any other allowed move, manoeuvre or formation change not listed as simple) apply?

If they are prohibited, does't that make that bullet point redundant? (given the first bullet point)

The 3rd bullet point is more of a catch-all.
i.e. if someone comes across a permitted move that's not listed in the complex move table is automatically complex.

AlanCutner wrote:Wouldn't go that far. But I am finding it a lot easier if I make lots of notes of which rules sections/pages relate to each other. And I have lots of places I've written in a few lines that just need repeating from somewhere else in the book.

Writing in page captions, page cross references, clarifications, reminders, connecting arrows, and forum references (to the 5 digit thread number and date) in the book (including the QRS) are all useful techniques.

A detailed step-by-step (carefully scripted, think "re-enactment") "let's play" with marked up photos and text on the web would be very useful to illustrate play and rules. (One that went astray, of course, would throw people into confusion.) Diagrams could substitute for photos, but don't make a good visual impression. A video would be too difficult to execute exactly and would move too slowly.

Prrussian Army List again

Was looking at the army list spotted another anomally.

Cavalry division must be either Dragoons or Cuirsssier, and must have 3 units of heavy cavalry, but you can only have 2 of dragoons max of 8 bases, which makes the dragoons one impossible.

Another question, when creating a mixed division, is says more than half the units must be Infantry, so if you have 1 Cavalry and one artillery unit (not attachment) you must have 3 infantry or doesn't the artillery unit count.

Ben Jones

It may have 3 Heavy Cavalry units (and can with Cuirassiers) but only requires the normal 2, which you can form with Dragoons.

Yes, it must have 3 Infantry units. It must have 2 Infantry anyway, and is allowed to have up to 4.

Sorry misread it. Thanks for pointing that out.

Ben Jones

AlanCutner wrote:Hmmm....increasingly thinking nice rules once you get to know them. But very, very badly laid out and inconsistent. Too many related rules spaced out through the book rather than grouped together, which increases the scope for the errors we're finding.

My exact finding - also rely tough to get into and start playing.



Paul

As I read the rules over and over and play the game again and again things became clearer.
However, I feel that what I need now is a better QRS, more detailed and up to date with all errata incorporated.
I think that the authors should offer such a pdf to the gamming community as soon as possible.

My QRS copy is full of notes, additions and corrections...