FoG:R Errata v1.10

[nikgaukroger]

Richard and I did discuss the immediate removal option but decided against it. We are unlikely to revisit this.

Ahem! Except you also decided for immediate removal when artillery are shot at.

Fear not, that also had all the consideration it deserved.

[Sarmaticus]

Loss of guns was a blow to prestige, to the purse and to future prospects of knocking down high medieval walls around prosperous towns.

Very important, strategically. And if you win the battle you'll own all the guns left on the field.

But in terms of the battle itself those guns are no use unless you can kill stuff with them. Once their crews are dead (or running away) you've lost that facility. Having some posh boy on a horse wave his sword over them shouldn't have the same effect on morale.

Dave

Because they're important strategically, your side is not supposed to be losing them: if you are, things aren't going your way; if you get them back, things are. They're trophies of war for the army, like standards and colours for troops or companies. Fetishising them keeps officers up to the mark in a time when they still had something of the caste of feudal nobles or mercenary captains.
De Saxe made the point that troops panic when things happen that aren't supposed to: if they're told to hold a linear entrenchment, they'll tend to panic along the whole line if even a small force gets over at any point - some Ottoman posh boy raising a flag from a turret at Constantinople, some Swedish toff leading his lads over the rampart at Narva. I'd say, reasons like that meant that, while not as potentially catatrophic as a fortified line being breached, losing guns gave the impression the day was going badly; getting them back that it was getting better again. After all, camps aren't immmediately useful (unless you're the Swedes bringing up ammunition to fire from the captured ditch battery at Luetzen).

[batesmotel]

Now available - http://www.fieldofglory.com/files/FoG_R ... _11_13.pdf

Nice to see:

P.67. INTERPENETRATIONS. Add additional bullet after the 4th:
“Any troops can pass through uncontrolled artillery perpendicularly from back to front or
front to back only"

Of course this still leaves the somewhat glaring inconsistency that artillery "vanishes" if shot at but if fought over it remains in place and can captured and re-captured as a result.

Does passing through uncontrolled artillery prevent a charge through them since it would be an interpenetration? If so, then a line of any enemy troops just beyond the artillery again turns them back into an impenetrable obstacle for mounted.

Chris

[madaxeman]

... especially where they have enemy mounted in contact with their rear edge, as then you cannot fight the mounted at all, as they do not "support" (and fight in place of) the gunnes as infantry would do.

[donm2]

Now available - http://www.fieldofglory.com/files/FoG_R ... _11_13.pdf

Nice to see:

P.67. INTERPENETRATIONS. Add additional bullet after the 4th:
“Any troops can pass through uncontrolled artillery perpendicularly from back to front or
front to back only"

Of course this still leaves the somewhat glaring inconsistency that artillery "vanishes" if shot at but if fought over it remains in place and can captured and re-captured as a result.

Does passing through uncontrolled artillery prevent a charge through them since it would be an interpenetration? If so, then a line of any enemy troops just beyond the artillery again turns them back into an impenetrable obstacle for mounted.

Chris

It depends whether you count uncontrolled artillery as friends, as you can only interpenetrate friendly battle groups.
Page 127 suggests it is friendly to both sides, 'Uncontrolled artillery does not count as enemy to either side'. So interpenetration is OK, but not in a charge.

Interpenetration is also prevented if there is not enough room beyond the artillery for the unit to fit, so yes it is still possible to stop movement.

Perhaps uncontrolled artillery should be replaced by markers, until such time as they are taken under control again.

Don

[kevinj]

Could somebody please send me a copy of these? I've lost mine and the link isn't working at present.

[quackstheking]

Sent!

Don

[D00pded00p]

Just a quick question from a new player. If I download the current version of the errata (v1.10) does this cover all of the previous versions.

ie are the errata in v1.04 for example incorporated into the current version.

What I am trying to avoid is the possible necessity of having to download 10 versions and go through the book multiple times to make sure
I am up to date..

Thanks in advance

D00p

[kevinj]

Yes, each version includes all previous versions.

[Amra]

I can't seem to get this link to work . Can I find the errata any where else ?

[rbodleyscott]

I can't seem to get this link to work . Can I find the errata any where else ?

Site seems to be down - I will enquire.

[Delbruck]

Is this the latest errata?

[kevinj]

Yes, it is.