Book 4 errata

[Barritus]

List 48 - Yuan Chinese: - The Kan-t'ao-lu ally general is costed at 1AP when he should be 6AP;
- The Kan-t'ao-lu ally general is compulsory from 1265 to 1274, yet although he can only command Kan-t'ao-lu troops, the KTL troops themselves don't have a compulsory minimum (commands must contain at least 4ME of troops in addition to the general).

(Already mentioned on the DBMM list):
List 3 - Anglo-Norman: - The mercenary sub-general William of Ypres can only command mercenaries, and two mercenary troop types are listed below him. But the general list's Irr Kn(F/O) and Irr Sp (I) (and Irr Bw (O) after 1150) include troops described as mercenaries. Can William of Ypres command them too?

List 66 - Later Polish: - After 1454 you replace the Rycerz (7-16 Irr Kn (O)) with 4-12 Hussars (Reg Kn (F)). Does this mean you choose 7-16 Irr Kn (O), then replace 4-12 of them with Reg Kn (F)? Or does it mean that after 1454 you can no longer select Irr Kn (O), and instead choose only Hussars? I suspect the former, on the grounds that the notes speak of the army transitioning, with the process not complete until around 1560. But if that's the case, why was the word "replace" used instead of "upgrade" or "regrade" as is used in so many other similar cases?

[Barritus]

List 64 - Medieval French: King John II is available as an Inert C-in-C in 1356, and the Jacuerie allies are available from 1356 to 1360. The notes say the Jacquerie revolt started after the defeat at Poitiers. So does this mean you can't use them with Inert King John II?

[LAP1964]

List 49 Anatolian Turkoman
Turkoman Ally-general Irr Lh(S) @ 12AP, should be  @11AP
LES

[Barritus]

Ottoman Turks: should the Serbian sub-general really be allowed Regular Baggage?

[Barritus]

Not errata so much as checking whether this is what the list writers intended...

- Burgundian Ordonnance militia/mercenary handgunners from 1478 to 1506 are listed as "1-2 per crossbowmen" [sic]. Is that per militia/mercenary crossbowman, or every crossbowman in the army, including Ordonnance crossbowmen?
 
- Why can't the Lancastrian Wars of the Roses English army field any Scots? They were available in the DBM list, and Scots were widely noted as being part of the Lancastrian army which won the Second Battle of Saint Albans.
 
Okay, this is an erratum...

- Hundred Years War English: Flemish communal allies, listed as Book 4/37, it's actually 4/57.
 

[Barritus]

- Free Company list: "There is no restriction on mixing nationalities except that an allied contingent supplied to a Communal Italian army must be only English and/or German or only Gascon and Breton." Should that be "Italian Condotta" instead of "Communal Italian"?

[Barritus]

Free Company list: must English gentlemen be taken in multiples of 4, or is it good enough that the longbowmen must number between 50% and 75% of the number of English gentlemen?

[Barritus]

Again, not so much an errata as a question...

Why is it that Burgundian Kn (O) in a Morean Byzantine army can dismount, but not the Acciajuoli Athenian Italians, the Frankish feudal vassals or the Papal mercenaries in the same list? The Athenian and Papal knights are both of condotta origin, aren't they?

[Orcoteuthis]

Again, not so much an errata as a question...

Why is it that Burgundian Kn (O) in a Morean Byzantine army can dismount, but not the Acciajuoli Athenian Italians, the Frankish feudal vassals or the Papal mercenaries in the same list? The Athenian and Papal knights are both of condotta origin, aren't they?

Probably because no-one found a battle account of non-Burgy Kn actually dismounting in Morean service.

Phil isn't terribly consistent about this sort of things, mind.

[Barritus]

List 21 - Anglo-Irish: From 1404 colonist billmen are available, but they're listed as Irr Bd (I) @ 5AP. Are they regular or are they 4AP? (I suspect the former.)

[Barritus]

List 16 - Scots Common Army: Here's a beauty - the list allows you to buy "Small Folk" and camp followers (Irr Hd (O)), and says they can be used in a False Reinforcement Strategem. The rules say that False Reinforcements can only be used by armies with Bg (O), which is only available to the Scots from 1488. The problem is that this sort of stratagem was used at Bannockburn, more than 170 years earlier. So one of the more iconic moments of Scottish warfare can't be recreated because, supposedly, at this time, Scottish baggage was always stolen cattle. Who had the Scots stolen cattle from at the time of the Battle of Bannockburn? Themselves?

[Swampster]

Who had the Scots stolen cattle from at the time of the Battle of Bannockburn? Themselves?

Bearing in mind the nature of the war - perhaps so
A good deal of land was either in the hands of Scots supporting Edward or English barons.
Archaeologists are apparently scouring the area around Borestone for signs of a Scottish camp and may have found a few bits and pieces. Whether the camp was enough to count as Bge may be the issue - i.e. would it have contained enough to embolden its owners by its presence and to disheartenen them through its loss.

[Barritus]

Another question rather than an erratum...

In the Hundred Years War English list, there's a period of a few years where it's possible to have Brilliant Talbot as the English C-in-C, and also have Early Burgundians as allies, with Brilliant Phillip the Good as ally general.

This is the only case I'm aware of in which an army can field two Brilliant generals. For that reason alone I'm wondering whether it's intended or whether it should be allowed.

(Please note I'm not suggesting it's a bad thing from a play balance point of view - I recognise they can be hard to use, and two of them won't necessarily make things any better.)

[Barritus]

Early Burgundians 1: The notes say

Bd (S) or (O) can support Bw (S) or (O) and vice versa.

There aren't any Bd (O) in the list.

EB2: The list says

Only after 1464 AD:
Swiss...
Only from 1465 AD:
Regrade C-in-C...

In other words, the two options are available from the same year, and can therefore be listed together.

[Swampster]

Lots of good work here, Barritus.
Thanks for the effort.