List Errata

GKChesterton1976 · Post by **GKChesterton1976** » Sun Nov 14, 2010 9:56 am

I am just about to shell out a lot to have a 30YW French Army painted. Want to make sure there are no list errata either on foot or pending with respect to the list. Haven't been able to find any yet.

A

GKChesterton1976 · Post by **GKChesterton1976** » Sun Nov 14, 2010 10:06 am

Found it - apparently nothing for that army other than no mention of their ally list.

I am ordering:

4 commanders
8 regiments of foot with regimental guns
5 regiments of horse (4 armoured, 1 not)
2 regiments of miquelets
4 bases of dragoons
4 heavy guns with crew and limbers
1 regiment of Light Horse
A camp

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Sun Nov 14, 2010 10:10 am

See

http://slitherine.com/fog_r

The errata sheet there includes the missing ally list. There are no other known errata for the 30YW French list.

Scrumpy · Post by **Scrumpy** » Mon Nov 15, 2010 3:14 pm

You know you can only have a maximum of 4 regimental guns in this list ?

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Mon Nov 15, 2010 6:02 pm

I disagree.

If you mean the Ally list you can have 5 (you may not have the points)

If you mean the main list I do not see any prohibition on taking more than 4 non-poor regiments. I can see how you can take 8.

Scrumpy · Post by **Scrumpy** » Mon Nov 15, 2010 7:07 pm

timmy1 wrote:I disagree.

If you mean the Ally list you can have 5 (you may not have the points)

If you mean the main list I do not see any prohibition on taking more than 4 non-poor regiments. I can see how you can take 8.

It says you have to have as many superior bg with regimental guns as average bg with them. As you can only have 2 superior bg, then you can only have 4 regimental guns.

Unless the errata changed that.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Mon Nov 15, 2010 7:18 pm

Only if any Superior BGs are fielded.

At least that was the intention - I guess we will errata it as it doesn't quite say that

Suspect a few other lists may be the same.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Mon Nov 15, 2010 7:24 pm

Scrumpy, you are correct. My mistake.

Nik, you had better get that errata out very soon unless you meant what Scrumpy spotted.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Mon Nov 15, 2010 7:29 pm

Nik

I have checked all the other lists in Wars of Religion and cannot see exactly that in any other list.

Scrumpy · Post by **Scrumpy** » Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:04 am

nikgaukroger wrote:Only if any Superior BGs are fielded.

At least that was the intention - I guess we will errata it as it doesn't quite say that

Suspect a few other lists may be the same.

We have enough trouble with the rules as written without having to play psychic and work out the unwritten intentions as well Nik !

SirGarnet · Post by **SirGarnet** » Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:49 am

I think what is meant is "If any regimental guns are used then at least as many of any Superior battle groups fielded must have them as Average battle groups."

This avoids any confusion about having to take multiple Superior BGs.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:56 am

MikeK wrote:I think what is meant is "If any regimental guns are used then at least as many of any Superior battle groups fielded must have them as Average battle groups."

This avoids any confusion about having to take multiple Superior BGs.

I know your intent, but I don't think the suggested wording does the job. I still haven't thought of a wording that would.

GKChesterton1976 · Post by **GKChesterton1976** » Wed Nov 17, 2010 9:08 am

So if I run 8 regiments of Average foot they can all have regimental guns in circumstances where I take no superior foot?

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Wed Nov 17, 2010 9:23 am

tamerlane wrote:So if I run 8 regiments of Average foot they can all have regimental guns in circumstances where I take no superior foot?

That is the intention, however, as noted the wording does not actually say that 'cos we got it a bit wrong. It will be errata-ed when a new set of errata is published (don't know when that will be at present).

LambertSimnel · Post by **LambertSimnel** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 1:14 am

rbodleyscott wrote:
MikeK wrote:I think what is meant is "If any regimental guns are used then at least as many of any Superior battle groups fielded must have them as Average battle groups."

This avoids any confusion about having to take multiple Superior BGs.
I know your intent, but I don't think the suggested wording does the job. I still haven't thought of a wording that would.

Maybe something like "If any Superior pike & shot battle groups do not have regimental guns then at least half of all battle groups with regimental guns must be Superior"?

GKChesterton1976 · Post by **GKChesterton1976** » Sun Jan 13, 2013 10:20 am

nikgaukroger wrote:Only if any Superior BGs are fielded.

At least that was the intention - I guess we will errata it as it doesn't quite say that

Suspect a few other lists may be the same.

Can I quote you on this to the list checker for CanCon?

I don't want to take any superior BGs but want to take some regimental guns.

Can I do so?

Adrian

ravenflight · Post by **ravenflight** » Sun Jan 13, 2013 10:32 am

tamerlane wrote:Can I quote you on this to the list checker for CanCon?

I don't want to take any superior BGs but want to take some regimental guns.

Can I do so?

Adrian

W-A-I-T a second... and I quote...

I have had my list settled for months. It is incapable of further improvement!
Adrian

So are you telling me that this wasn't the case?

List Errata

List Errata

30YW French

Re:

Re: Re: