Slitherine

Morning all

is this supplement still on track ready for a mid-june release?

Hi,

I think so. It has already been received by some stockists in Australia - locked in their back rooms waiting to be released. Not long to go now!

Cheers,
John Shaw

Bump

Any official response on this one

Any official response on this one

Not from me I'm afraid. I recevied my copy of the rules after most people on this forum had theirs.

The usual expediency applied to a perfectly reasonable question once again I see.

Oh well. At the speed I paint I might just get an answer by the time my forces are ready to face each other on the table in twelve to eighteen months time.

Who knows, by then we might even have a QRS or possibly sub boards in the forum.

The usual expediency applied to a perfectly reasonable question once again I see.

The official publication date is 20th June.
Most people who pre-ordered last time received their order about 1 week before.

Here the ship date given is June 7th, so we'll hopefully see it a bit after that! Looking forward to some interesting French and Austrian lists.

My mate already has a copy. has done for about a week I think.

Oiiiiiii...the ship date changed to the 19th!

Hi All,

Just got home from Work and my copy as arrived today looking very cool

Mine arrived this morning, and it was in my grubby hands about 10mins ago. Lots of army lists!!

But I'm a bit annoyed! The some of the errors found in the army lists from the main rulebook that were mentioned in the errata thread have re-appeared in ToN.
Was no-one reading the errata thread?

e.g.
Russian Infantry Corps 1812, page 41
* Hussars with no Lances
* Cossacks with no Lances
* Uhlans with no Lances

I can understand the reasons why Hussars and Cossacks arn't given lance capability, but what I don't understand is why the Uhlans in the Cavalry Corps have lances but the Uhlans in the infantry Corps don't - they were essentially the same, so surely this is a mistake?

Don

But I'm a bit annoyed! The some of the errors found in the army lists from the main rulebook that were mentioned in the errata thread have re-appeared in ToN.
Was no-one reading the errata thread?

e.g.
Russian Infantry Corps 1812, page 41
* Hussars with no Lances
* Cossacks with no Lances
* Uhlans with no Lances

ToN was already submitted before the rules came out, so any errors transcribed would not be rectified.
* Hussars with no Lances - is deliberate
* Cossacks with no Lances - is deliberate
* Uhlans with no Lances - is an error.

* Hussars with no Lances - is deliberate

The Hussars were trained by the Uhlans to use the lance, why ignore this? ToN even includes the Osprey colour drawing showing a trooper from the Pavlograd Hussars armed with one! (Pg 99)

* Cossacks with no Lances - is deliberate

Its their main weapon, why leave it out? I guess the Cossacks on page 94 who are carrying lances aren't really carrying lances.

* Uhlans with no Lances - is an error.

Yes, a simple lack of proof-reading.

Just browsing through ToN, I find (p.6) that Schiller, presumably the poet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiller led a revolt in Prussia in 1809; A feat particularly noteworthy, I suppose, because he had died in 1805 and wasn't even a Prussian. I think Ferdinand Baptista von Schill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_von_Schill might be the intended fellow.
Page 23 also gives us the charming transposition of vowels, beloved of wargamers, turning life (leib) into love (lieb) cuirassiers.

Finally got the army list book, mistakes aside I really like how the lists are laid out by years and campaigns. Great idea on that one. So far have only glanced at some lists but like what I see so far, 1809 Austrians soon to take to the field of glory
2 wins in a row so far

The Hussars were trained by the Uhlans to use the lance, why ignore this? ToN even includes the Osprey colour drawing showing a trooper from the Pavlograd Hussars armed with one! (Pg 99)

Hussars were issued with lances in April 1812 to be used by the front rank only.
"To use a lance successfully a long and thorough training is necessary, and that if the cavalryman is not skilful enough, the lance is rather an encumbrance for him. " - quote from Martens who served in the IzyumHussar regiment in 1812.
There is no way that a long and thorough training had been given to these regiment during 1812.

Another quote from Karl Von Martens (also serving with the Izyum Hussar regiemnt in 1812) "many hussars were dissatisfied with lances and threw them off in the beginning of the 1812 campaign".

These contemporary accounts indicate that the Hussars were not sufficiently trained to use the lance, and that they did not necessarily carry them throughout the campaign. It is therefore better to disregard the lance, and allow the Russians to pay the same points as other nations for the their light cavalry, instead of forcing them to pay 25% more - for little benefit. being given a lance does not mean that they could use it effectively.

Its their main weapon, why leave it out? I guess the Cossacks on page 94 who are carrying lances aren't really carrying lances.

A quote from Bagration documented by F. V. Bulgarin, who served with the Grand Duke' Constantin's Uhlan Regiment in 807:
"Concerning the lance, one should be extremely skilful with it, then it would be useful: otherwise, it would only confuse the cavalryman. To our Cossacks there is no better weapon than the lance, because it is the best weapon in pursuit of the enemy. But in mêlée, how the cavalry usually fight, the sabre, curved or straight, is better."

Giving the cossacks a Lance capability would not accurately reflect the performance of Cossacks on the battlefield - after all we don't give them a -POA when fighting enemy armed with a sabre. There is no real reason to increase the effectivness of a troop type that relied on their enemy fleeing to get a benefit from their preferred weapon.
Doing so would not increase their battlefield capability but would increase their points cost by nearly 30%.

Of course if someone wanted to pay the extra 2 points per base for their cossacks and give them a lance, I'm sure mose opponents would be happy to agree.

Sarmaticus wrote:Just browsing through ToN, I find (p.6) that Schiller, presumably the poet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiller led a revolt in Prussia in 1809; A feat particularly noteworthy, I suppose, because he had died in 1805 and wasn't even a Prussian. I think Ferdinand Baptista von Schill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_von_Schill might be the intended fellow.
Page 23 also gives us the charming transposition of vowels, beloved of wargamers, turning life (leib) into love (lieb) cuirassiers.

I can only conclude that advancing age failing vision and recurrent absent mindedness made me think " Schill" but type "Schiller" - the poet with whose work I am rather more familiar having seen the Festspiel of William Tell at Interlaken. ! ! Ditto "leib" and "lieb" which is classic finger typing "reserval"(sic) for which there appears no cure known to modern medicine save laughter. Just read some of my posts

There was no professional proofing available that we were aware of and we had complaints that we submitted far to many corrections/changes at the proof stage. In my formative years proof reading was two people , one reading aloud from the proof and the other following on the original text - then do it again. Another couple of years maybe?

As Dylan sang " There's no success like failure...." a line I must keep remembering as this work rolls out like some rough beast slouching its way to Bethlehem to be be born (Yeats).

Lets hope the life of this brainchild is happier than its birh pangs .

Sarmaticus wrote:Just browsing through ToN, I find (p.6) that Schiller, presumably the poet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiller led a revolt in Prussia in 1809; A feat particularly noteworthy, I suppose, because he had died in 1805 and wasn't even a Prussian. I think Ferdinand Baptista von Schill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_von_Schill might be the intended fellow.
Page 23 also gives us the charming transposition of vowels, beloved of wargamers, turning life (leib) into love (lieb) cuirassiers.

I can only conclude that advancing age failing vision and recurrent absent mindedness made me think " Schill" but type "Schiller" - the poet with whose work I am rather more familiar having seen the Festspiel of William Tell at Interlaken. ! ! Ditto "leib" and "lieb" which is classic finger typing "reserval"(sic) for which there appears no cure known to modern medicine save laughter. Just read some of my posts

There was no professional proofing available that we were aware of and we had complaints that we submitted far to many corrections/changes at the proof stage. In my formative years proof reading was two people , one reading aloud from the proof and the other following on the original text - then do it again. Another couple of years maybe?

As Dylan sang " There's no success like failure...." a line I must keep remembering as this work rolls out like some rough beast slouching its way to Bethlehem to be be born (Yeats).

Lets hope the life of this brainchild is happier than its birh pangs .

MikeHorah wrote:I can only conclude that advancing age failing vision and recurrent absent mindedness...

Not to mention the habit of repeating oneself.