Errata to go in Errata V1.09

[rbodleyscott]

Please could people put all additional errata not dealt with in V1.08 in this thread, so that I can find them when it comes to the next errata update.

[rbodleyscott]

The Scottish list can have an Elizabethan English ally in 1560, but the E.E. ally list only has the Late Tercios that existed after 1584. Clearly, it should include the whacky earlier formations.

Dave

[timmy1]

Richard

I have been through every Errata I have posted. Of the material ones all have been dealt with other than the two below.

Wars of Religion Companion 1

Page 26, Early Thirty Years' War German Protestant Allies.

Ill equipped foot, Heavy Foot, Armoured, Poor, Pike, Pike are priced at 3 points per base - it should be 4. However as the main list has them as Unarmoured for 3 points, I suspect that Unarmoured is the intent.

Trade and Treachery Companion 2

Page 107, French Wars of Religion - Huguenot.

Allies 'Dutch allies (only in 1591) - Early Eighty Years Dutch'. However that list runs 'until the military reforms of Maurice ... of Nassau in 1590' (also on page 107).

Which list should the ally be drawn from?

Regards
Tim

[rbodleyscott]

The Italian Wars French list says no Lansquenet before 1513, every account I have read of Ravenna (1512) says no Swiss but Lansquenet present.

You'd also need to change the dates for the Swiss to "Only before 1512". There were no Swiss at Ravenna and I'm pretty sure that the French shouldn't have the option of fielding them since later in 1512 the Swiss invaded Milan (then a French possession) at the behest of the Pope.

[rbodleyscott]

Add the words "This includes light artillery mounted on battle wagons." to the section on artillery not moving and shooting.

[rbodleyscott]

Although quite bizarrely, Battle Wagons appear to suffer a threatened flank if enemy mounted are within 12MU of a flank. Surely that can't be right? That's exactly where a Battle Wagon would want to see enemy mounted?

[petedalby]

Sorry Richard - another Battle Wagon one:

Shooting - BWs are a minus POA unless shot at by bombs or artillery whereas Regimental Guns are a 0 POA against any target.

Which takes precedence?

[Scrumpy]

Pete,

I thought Regimental Guns did not count as Artillery in these rules ?

[petedalby]

I thought Regimental Guns did not count as Artillery in these rules ?

You are spot on Paul - they don't - hence my question.

Only Artillery & bombs are on an even POA vs BWs. And yet it also says RGs are on an even POA vs any target. One statement must therefore be wrong / incomplete.

[Pavaro]

A question about Early Danish list in the Clash of Empires companion....

In the optional troops, Early Danish can have mounted reiters with Impact capacity Pistol and Close Combat capacity Pistol without any date limit.

Is this correct?

Thanks
Roberto

[footslogger]

Not sure this is worth an errata, but....

I have some horse that belong to a friend, not sure what they are based for, but they are 60mm depth (in 28mm). The turning rules would allow these guys when in a single rank to turn 90degrees and be in two files. So, in the section where you describe using figures based for other systems, you might want to clarify in a manner similar to what you've done for pike that are based not as deep: "This is acceptable but the game must be played so that no advantage or disadvantage accrues from using deeper (in this case) bases and the rules are to be interpreted accordingly."

[Scrumpy]

In the Spanish Imperialist list (T&T) The English troops for the 1557-59 period fight as Pike, bow & Caliver combined as per the Elizabethan list. Shouldn't they be allowed that formation in the Later henrican list when Mary is Queen ?

[kevinj]

P75 "When a battle group which started the game with one pike base and five musketeer bases has its pike base in the rearmost rank and charges or is charged, the owner can exchange the pike base with the musketeer base at the front of its file"

This makes sense when the BG is in its normal 3x2 formation, but produces some strange results if the BG is in column. In that circumstance, the pike base could be moved all the way to the fron if it were in the 6th rank, but not if it were anywhere else.

I suggest replacing "rearmost" with "second" would make more sense. Alternatively you could allow the pike to move forward from any position, but that also seems odd when other pike and shot BGs do not have a similar option.

[trispowl]

The Japanese list in Colonies and Conquest states that Palisades are available Only from 1575, yet the Total Bases column states 0-12 before 1575, 0-24 from 1575

Which is correct?

[daveallen]

Colonies & Conquest

Japanese list

Pages 33 - 36

The second b.p. on p 33 says:

Murakami kaizoku armies cannot have cavalry...

Should the minima for Cavalry in the main and ally lists have an asterisk to reflect this

Dave Allen

[rbodleyscott]

For the Caroline Imperialist list, my copy does not list field fortifications as being available.

This for the army that fought behind field fortifications at Bicocca in 1522?

Am I missing something here?

[kevinj]

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.

Later Tercios

ETs and Keils can lose their status but there seems to be no mechanism for these to degrade following base losses. Would it be reasonable that they become other pike and shot BGs if, for example, a 9 base LT was reduced to 6 bases? They would lose their LT abilities but also would not suffer +POA when shot by artillery.

And if we can have points rebalancing, Cavalry without the ability to evade should be 2 points less so that they are no more expensive than the equivalent Horse. I could argue for 3 as they're still worse than the Horse, but I'm not going to be greedy

[alasdair2204]

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

[Maniakes]

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

[rbodleyscott]

Later Tercios
ETs and Keils can lose their status but there seems to be no mechanism for these to degrade following base losses.

This is intentional. They idea is that they shrink but (although this cannot be shown with the bases) maintain a deeper formation than equivalent "normal" pike and shot. So they keep the secure flank benefit, but also the increased vulnerability to artillery.