Author Topic: Errata - Book 4 2nd edition  (Read 848 times)

Barritus

  • El(S)
  • *****
  • Posts: 623
Errata - Book 4 2nd edition
« on: March 09, 2017, 01:23:22 PM »
Here are some errata from the new version of Book 4.

This first lot are errata carried over from the first edition which weren't addressed...

4/1 – Komnenan Byzantine: Can Seljuq Turk allies include Hamadan (and thus Inert Kerbogah in 1098)?

4/2 – Cilician Armenian: Can Early Crusader allies be commanded by Brilliant Bohemond? Can Later Crusader allies be commanded by Inert Guy?

4/4 – Feudal French: Does the phrase “in 1268 only” apply to when Charles of Anjou can be brilliant, or the period in which Brilliant Charles was assisted by Erard de Valery? In other words, is the brilliant general available only in 1268?

4/6 – Syrian: Can Early Crusader allies be commanded by Brilliant Bohemond? Can Later Crusader allies be commanded by Inert Guy?

4/7 – Early Crusaders: Byzantine tourkopouloi can’t be used as scouts, as they were historically, as they’re currently restricted to an ally command.

4/16 – Scots Common: The “Small Folks” False Reinforcement stratagem is unavailable until 1488, when Bge (O) becomes available. This means it’s unavailable for Bannockburn, the battle for which the stratagem is most famous.

4/17 – Later Crusader: Can the True Cross be used in ally contingents provided by this list, seeing as it’s not listed as 0-1 but as 0 or 1.

4/23 – Feudal English: Why is the word “only” used in the sentence to describe permitted troops in a Marcher allied contingent to a Welsh army, as this is more generous than normal ally rules.

4/39 – Navarrese: What can be included in a Navarrese ally contingent, particularly when Navarrese Company?

4/48 – Yuan Chinese: Kan-t’ao-lu infantry must number at least 8 if they’re required to be in a command under their own general.

4/61 – Italian Condotta: Can a Free Company ally command in a VI or Mi army upgrade their baggage to regular? Secondly, the statement “VG and GC cannot use neither militia nor any pikes, nor be allies” isn’t grammatical. What exactly isn’t allowed?

4/64 – Medieval French: First, Jacquerie infantry can’t be less than 8 if they’re to be part of a legal command. Second, should Jacquerie be allowed with Inert King John II, seeing as the rise of the Jacquerie followed his defeat at Poitiers?

4/74 – Free Company: As English longbowmen are to be taken as 2-3 per 4 English Kn (I), does this mean (a) the number of English Kn (I) elements must be a multiple of 4, or (b) any number of English Kn (I) from 4 to 12 can be taken, and the number of English longbowmen elements must be somewhere from 50% to 75% of the number of English Kn (I)?

4/83 – WOTR English: Firstly, what are the date limits of the Lancastrian, Yorkist, R3 and Tudor armies? Presumably 1455-1471, 1455-1482, 1483-1485 and 1485-1488 respectively. Secondly, shouldn’t it be possible for Northern Border troops to be allocated to a single general, as the contingent of a lone northern nobleman? Otherwise, splitting them between multiple ally generals seems messy. Thirdly, who can use Kn (S) C-in-C? Henry VI never led an army in battle, and Henry VII claimed the throne from the day before the battle. Fourth, how can it work for Lord Stanley to be one of R3’s generals? This would require him to change sides in the battle. Wouldn’t it be better for him to be an inert ally for Henry Tudor who happened to be unreliable, with that unreliability resolved during the course of the battle?

= = = =

On top of that, there are errors which have appeared in the new list books, thanks to changes which have been made.

4/Anglo-Norman: Brabancon/Flemish mercenary Pk (I) can’t possibly be optional, as without them the command would be illegally small.

4/Swiss: Can the Lorrainer general(s) be used in addition to the Swiss subs, giving you up to three sub-generals?

4/Ordonnance French: Why are English allies 1488-1491 [T] when English are [H] from 1489?

4/WOTR: Why aren’t Welsh Bw upgraded to (S)? Also, if a third of Henry Tudor’s men were French pikemen, why can he only have 4?

Barritus

  • El(S)
  • *****
  • Posts: 623
Re: Errata - Book 4 2nd edition
« Reply #1 on: March 09, 2017, 01:46:46 PM »
Low Countries: the list provides for 2-8 Crossbowmen, up to 2 of which can be made mounted. Then, the line below, there’s an option to make 2 crossbowmen mounted. Can we assume the second line is redundant?

Inca: the list provides for 0-3 HO. Then, in the section providing for Spanish allies, there’s a second option for 0-3 HO. Is this intended?

Barritus

  • El(S)
  • *****
  • Posts: 623
Re: Errata - Book 4 2nd edition
« Reply #2 on: March 09, 2017, 01:51:38 PM »
Tarascan/Toltec-Chichimec: I note the list notes say that comps should be limited to pre-1525 so the Spanish are included only for friendlies. But the Spanish are available before 1525. So presumably this must allow the Spanish…

Additionally, if I take Mixtec or Zapotec with Toltec-Chichimec allies, does this mean I can use Tlaxcalans with added Spanish? If so, what Spanish can the Tlaxcalans have?

Barritus

  • El(S)
  • *****
  • Posts: 623
Re: Errata - Book 4 2nd edition
« Reply #3 on: March 09, 2017, 02:00:08 PM »
Later Hungarians: Can you upgrade the Szekeler sub-general to Reg Kn (O) after 1490?

Yuan Chinese: Is the Kan-Tao-Lu ally general compulsory?

Barritus

  • El(S)
  • *****
  • Posts: 623
Re: Errata - Book 4 2nd edition
« Reply #4 on: March 09, 2017, 02:16:48 PM »
Wars of the Roses English: The organisation of the WOTR Tudor and R3 armies don’t work. In game terms, Northumberland (Percy) and both Stanleys were unreliable at the start of the game. Northumberland remained unreliable throughout the battle, while Lord Stanley became loyal for Tudor part-way through the battle. Stanley could only be loyal for Tudor if either (a) he was Tudor’s at the start and took his time to become reliable, or (b) he was R3’s at the start and changed sides. But whatever the circumstances of how Stanley came to change sides, those circumstances would have also applied to Northumberland. Yet Percy never changed sides. Therefore (b) isn’t a possible set-up.

Therefore, the logical set-up for Bosworth is that R3 had sub Norfolk (Howard) and unreliable ally Northumberland, while Henry had sub Oxford (de Vere) and unreliable allies Stanley x 2.

Now this adjustment simplifies the business of the Northern Border foot, who would otherwise have to be split between two ally generals. This is, unless they’re allowed to be concentrated with one ally: all the more relevant given that Percy was from the North and Stanley wasn’t.

Orcoteuthis

  • Cv(S)
  • ***
  • Posts: 235
    • Alhazred (in Swedish, but a picture says more than a thousand words in any language)
Re: Errata - Book 4 2nd edition
« Reply #5 on: March 19, 2017, 03:51:58 PM »
4/13 Medieval German
The list note still speak of Maximilian's new "Burgundian" cavalry, but they're gone in the list.

(Since (a) the troops concerned definitely existed and (b) I've got them painted up, I feel the best solution would be to reinstate them in the list.)
Andreas Johansson

Barritus

  • El(S)
  • *****
  • Posts: 623
Re: Errata - Book 4 2nd edition
« Reply #6 on: October 23, 2017, 01:12:00 PM »
4/7 - Early Crusader: How is it that the knights of the First Crusade can't dismount in 1096-97? At the Battle of Dorylaeum that's what Bohemond did to keep his knights under control while waiting for the rest of the Crusaders to arrive!

Barritus

  • El(S)
  • *****
  • Posts: 623
Re: Errata - Book 4 2nd edition
« Reply #7 on: February 04, 2018, 06:01:54 AM »
Trapezuntine Byzantine: I see the Stratiotai lancers have been reclassified in the 2nd edition list book from Cv (O) to Kn (F), but the costs haven't been changed from 8AP to 11AP.

Seeing as the list notes now include a specific description of the lancers (for example, having pennons on their lances), I assume this means the reclassification as Kn (F) is an intended change, and it was the lack of a change in costs which was the mistake.

However it would be good for this to be clarified (particularly as this is a very useful change for the Trapezuntines, a very old favourite of mine).