Page 1 of 1
Empires of the Dragon Errata
Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:38 pm
by plewis66
Is there one? I seem to remember there being errata on the fieldofglory.com website, but I can't track them down any more.
Anyway, Page 128 of EotD, Mongol Conquest -> Other Mongol Cavalry -> Light Horse -> Armour" is listed as "Unprotected" or "Average".
Is this supposed to be Armour: Unprotected/Protected; or Quality: Superior/Average?
Thanks
Re: Empires of the Dragon Errata
Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 6:30 pm
by Ghaznavid
plewis66 wrote:Is there one? I seem to remember there being errata on the fieldofglory.com website, but I can't track them down any more.
Anyway, Page 128 of EotD, Mongol Conquest -> Other Mongol Cavalry -> Light Horse -> Armour" is listed as "Unprotected" or "Average".
Is this supposed to be Armour: Unprotected/Protected; or Quality: Superior/Average?
Most people don't even got the book yet, so no there is no errate for EotD just yet (actually it looks the authors are kept occupied enough by other obligations that not even the Oath errata has been completed).
The latest errata can be found here:
http://www.fieldofglory.com/errata.html
As for your question, based on the other Mongol lists it seems unlikely the LH is going to have a protected option (they should have one if made Cv though). It should be possible to class them as either Average or Superior, so that's probably what is intended.
Early Zhou Chinese
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 8:49 pm
by GavinP
If you are collecting possible errata...how about this one.
Early Zhou army notes state total bases of dagger-axemen cannot be more than twice total of archers and vice versa. BUT in starter army there are 12 bases of dagger-axemen and 39 bases of archers.
Noticed this as I was looking to see if I could do something with my old 6th/7th edition Chou army (with massed chariots and rubbish (old style Reg D) medium infantry....and it looks possible (except for HF -> MF basing issue)
Re: Early Zhou Chinese
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 9:01 pm
by philqw78
GavinP wrote:If you are collecting possible errata...how about this one.
Early Zhou army notes state total bases of dagger-axemen cannot be more than twice total of archers and vice versa. BUT in starter army there are 12 bases of dagger-axemen and 39 bases of archers.
Noticed this as I was looking to see if I could do something with my old 6th/7th edition Chou army (with massed chariots and rubbish (old style Reg D) medium infantry....and it looks possible (except for HF -> MF basing issue)
The dagger axe/archer units are equal splits, 50/50. Then there are
Spearmen and Archers, then
archers, then
Hammy checks the lists.
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:05 pm
by philqw78
The strangest I have seen is 2 minimums of 6 bases of optional troops in the Jin list, but you can only use one set of the minimums. ( the one set of troop type apears like this in other lists. Strange wording.) But an optional troops minimum?? Could be in more??
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:45 pm
by DavidT
The Jin list also has a minimum of 6 Zhongxiao jun in the optional troops.
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:44 am
by Mehrunes
It seems like the book hasn't seen any beta testing.

Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:42 am
by madaxeman
In my copy the same army list of mixed protected HvWp/XB medium foot plus a few cavalry with bow/sword seems to have been reprinted underneath the historical text on every single one of the chinese lists ?

Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:48 am
by philqw78
madaxeman wrote:In my copy the same army list of mixed protected HvWp/XB medium foot plus a few cavalry with bow/sword seems to have been reprinted underneath the historical text on every single one of the chinese lists ?

Ah, but some get lancers and others just get girls on horses. Koryo Korean, the way ahead.
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:38 pm
by DavidT
philqw78 wrote:Ah, but some get lancers and others just get girls on horses. Koryo Korean, the way ahead.
But in the Koryo Korean list, you have to pay 18 points for your Nomad Nobles, even if they are only avaerage - everyone else gets superior Bw, Sw armoured cavalry for that!

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:33 am
by Antoshisamazing
The strangest I have seen is 2 minimums of 6 bases of optional troops in the Jin list, but you can only use one set of the minimums. ( the one set of troop type apears like this in other lists. Strange wording.) But an optional troops minimum?? Could be in more??
If I remember correctly the Pontic army list from Rise of Rome had compulsory number of imitation legionaries, which were filed under optional troops, after a certain point; so this is isn't a new thing.
Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:49 am
by philqw78
Antoshisamazing wrote:If I remember correctly the Pontic army list from Rise of Rome had compulsory number of imitation legionaries, which were filed under optional troops, after a certain point; so this is isn't a new thing.
Wasn't that because they were only after a certain point in time (which you didn't have to be), unlike the Jin which are compulsory optional troops all of the time.
Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:43 am
by Antoshisamazing
Wasn't that because they were only after a certain point in time (which you didn't have to be), unlike the Jin which are compulsory optional troops all of the time.
Even troops that are compulsary only during a set time are normally core units. I guess it's best to chalk this stuff up to wierd list writing on someones part and leave it that.
Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 10:04 am
by philqw78
AND the Tibetan list has a compulsory fortified camp. The starter army would be worth using but the camp is specifically stated as unfortified.
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:57 pm
by ottomanmjm
I found an error in the Yi Korean lists last night. The Nomad nobles are listed as:
Cav, Av, Arm, Und, Bow, Sw for 18 points.
I would think the error is that they should be Superior and the points are correct rather than the other way around.
Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 5:53 pm
by LambertSimnel
Khmer or Champa
Subject Cavalry has 4-6 Bases per BG, but only 0-4 Total Bases
Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 7:45 pm
by timmy1
Phil wrote
'
AND the Tibetan list has a compulsory fortified camp. The starter army would be worth using but the camp is specifically stated as unfortified.
'
As you well know Phil, the Starter Army lists were coming out with some errors (before EotD). Then James offered to assist with the quality and validity of the Starter Army lists...