acces to the beta test thread

Ranimiro · Post by **Ranimiro** » Wed May 27, 2009 1:32 pm

Does anyone know if we have to wait for authorization to acces that thread with our current account or do something else?

I have received the material but i think this is not the place to begin disscusions.

vichussar · Post by **vichussar** » Wed May 27, 2009 2:09 pm

I'm in the FOGN test and we have access to the Area51 forum for rules discussion so as to keep it inside the group. So I expect the same to happen with FOGRen when the Moderators sort out their playtester lists.

You also might like to drop a line to JDM who sent the test packs out if we haven't heard by the weekend.

John Mc

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Wed May 27, 2009 2:24 pm

Beta testers should be being given access to the FoG R Beta ASAP - it will depend on how long it takes Slitherine to do the board admin.

You won't get Area 51 access - that is for the writing team only.

Can I suggest people get play testing and note down issues/queries to be posted when you have beta board access.

gibby · Post by **gibby** » Wed May 27, 2009 6:53 pm

Will do Nik.

Just finished reading the rules and I plan on some solo play this weekend unless I find an opponent who can get to Northampton and is in the Beta test.

cheers
Jim

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Fri May 29, 2009 8:46 am

I understand that access to the beta forum will be arranged at the start of next week all being well. So get some games in over the weekend and hopefully you'll be able to post comments and thoughts next week - we're eager to hear

gibby · Post by **gibby** » Sat May 30, 2009 8:28 pm

Ok, Battlefield set up. The boys are on the table. I'm using the Naseby armies supplied in the rules and I have used Stuart Asquith's Naseby book for the battlefield set up.
The game will commence tomorrow and

You will have to wait until I get access to the Beta room before you get the blow by blow account.

cheers all.

OldenTired · Post by **OldenTired** » Sat May 30, 2009 8:37 pm

all good. i've already discovered some interesting typos.

pg 7 - is is tercios "with more than 50%" or, "50% or more". i'm thinking the latter, and it'll effect the game we're having soonish.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Sat May 30, 2009 8:51 pm

Novara, Boccia, and Pavia all mapped out at 800 Points, Marignano requires a bit of work due to an error or two in the French army list. Now I have the rules I can start.

charlesmasefield · Post by **charlesmasefield** » Sun May 31, 2009 2:27 pm

OldenTired wrote:all good. i've already discovered some interesting typos.

pg 7 - is is tercios "with more than 50%" or, "50% or more". i'm thinking the latter, and it'll effect the game we're having soonish.

Neither. The bullet would read more clearly thus "battle groups which start the game with more than 50% of their bases having pikemen capability and tercios". Thanks for flagging this up.

puster · Post by **puster** » Sun May 31, 2009 6:20 pm

timmy1 wrote:Novara, Boccia, and Pavia all mapped out at 800 Points, Marignano requires a bit of work due to an error or two in the French army list. Now I have the rules I can start.

Did you include the Bande Nere in the French army at Pavia, and how would you class them? Dragoons, or Light Lancers, both (in different Battlegroups), or something else? They seem to deserve their own entry anyway. What about the quality for Landsknechts and Swiss in the French army, and the non-appearance of Frundsberg as commander in the Imperial?

No response necessary for now. Can`t wait for the closed forum to open, to see and discuss these (and the dozen other engagements of the Italian war) in detail.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Sun May 31, 2009 6:38 pm

When the Beta test forum is open I will gladly tell all.

GHGAustin · Post by **GHGAustin** » Sun May 31, 2009 10:59 pm

We have some notes from our Naseby refight, which I will post as soon as we have a place for that.

Rob

OldenTired · Post by **OldenTired** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:23 am

charlesmasefield wrote:
OldenTired wrote:all good. i've already discovered some interesting typos.

pg 7 - is is tercios "with more than 50%" or, "50% or more". i'm thinking the latter, and it'll effect the game we're having soonish.
Neither. The bullet would read more clearly thus "battle groups which start the game with more than 50% of their bases having pikemen capability and tercios". Thanks for flagging this up.

ahhh... that makes a lot more sense. so colunela - not shock troops, landsknechts - shock troops.

thanks.