Author Topic: Book 4 errata  (Read 23991 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Barritus

  • Guest
Re: Book 4 errata
« Reply #15 on: July 19, 2011, 01:17:28 PM »
You're welcome.  :)

Barritus

  • Guest
Re: Book 4 errata
« Reply #16 on: July 19, 2011, 01:21:18 PM »
Burgundian Ordonnance: According to the list, Burgundian and English longbowmen can be equipped with stakes as PO. So which troops can use them? For people armed with a bow of some sort, the list mentions: Household archers (mtd Bw (S)), Ordonnance mounted archers (mtd Bw (S)), Ordonnance foot archers (Bw (S)), English longbowmen (Bw (S)), and Ordonnance foot archers (Bw (O)).

So there's only one troop type where the troops are specifically called "longbowmen", which raises the question of which Burgundian troops can use PO. But if the implication is that PO is available to all missile armed blokes who aren't crossbowmen, then the later Ordonnance foot archers classified as Bw (O) would be the only such types I can think of who get PO.

Orcoteuthis

  • Guest
Re: Book 4 errata
« Reply #17 on: August 08, 2011, 12:43:40 PM »
The medieval German list needs:
(i) a note that only Territorial or Imperial CinC's can have subgenerals. [This was the stated intent of the change to subbies, but the list as printed fails to enforce it.]
(ii) a clarification of which origins those can be. [The line in the list suggests subs can be Territorial or Imperial, the list notes imply that only CinC's can ever be Imperial].
(iii) a line added to the internal allies section to allow a [FC] CinC to have [FC] ally-generals.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2011, 08:33:52 AM by Orcoteuthis »

Barritus

  • Guest
Re: Book 4 errata
« Reply #18 on: August 21, 2011, 12:40:16 PM »
Komnenan Byzantine: This list allows you to take Venetian allies as a naval option. The land troops are a mix of Ax (S) and Bw (O), and the naval option will generally be Gal (F), although you can have some Shp (O) too. The list says the galleys can only take the Venetian Bw or Ax, while the ships can carry [any]. The problem is that the Venetian Ally General is marked as commanding all and only Venetians. The fact that the two different naval element types have different troop carrying options suggest the ships can carry non-Venetian troops, but the restriction specified by the AG would seem to rule this out.

The only thought which comes to mind is the possibility that the rules might allow naval elements from one command to carry troops from another. I've just had a quick look, and I can't see anything which prevents this.

Any thoughts?

Orcoteuthis

  • Guest
Re: Book 4 errata
« Reply #19 on: August 27, 2011, 07:57:31 AM »
More Medieval German:

From 1440, Kn (S) "rich knights" forming the Spitz of DBE wedges are available to all types of commands. They should probably be allowed to Imperial and Territorial commands only.

Also, Kn (I) "poor knights" are allowed to be DBE'd behind "rich knights" or generals. Should probably say Kn (S) generals, as the current wording allows them, if regraded mercenary men-at-arms, to be DBE'd behind City Kn (O) or Cantonal Kn (I) generals.

Barritus

  • Guest
Re: Book 4 errata
« Reply #20 on: November 11, 2011, 05:06:41 PM »
Wars of the Roses English: What are the year limits for the various options? I figure [Y] would be 1455-1482, [L] would be 1455-1471, [R3] would be 1483-1485, [T] would be 1485, and [YP] would be 1487. [H] is specified as 1489-1515.

But this still leaves gaps. What army would the Duke of Buckingham use for his 1484 revolt against Richard III, and what army does Henry VII use at Stoke in 1487?

The reason I ask is that I just checked a list for a comp which was labelled Lancastrian 1500. Technically there are no list benefits available, but it might affect a competition draw.

Barritus

  • Guest
Re: Book 4 errata
« Reply #21 on: November 11, 2011, 05:07:53 PM »
WOTR English again: Why the distinction for the two R3 entries in 1485? One is labelled "Only if C-in-C is Richard III in 1485AD" (optional upgrade of Richard III to Brilliant), while the other is labelled "Only in 1485AD" (compulsory downgrade of ally Lord Stanley as Inert). The lack of reference to Richard III in the second entry implies it's possible to have an R3 army in 1485 which is not commanded by Richard III (and thus can't have Kn (S) C-in-C or Kn (S) bodyguard men-at-arms), but which includes Lord Stanley. Was there ever such an army? If not, why not simply place both entries under the label "Only if C-in-C is Richard III in 1485AD"?

toby

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Book 4 errata
« Reply #22 on: November 11, 2011, 07:04:34 PM »
Wars of the Roses English: What are the year limits for the various options? I figure [Y] would be 1455-1482, [L] would be 1455-1471, [R3] would be 1483-1485, [T] would be 1485, and [YP] would be 1487. [H] is specified as 1489-1515.

But this still leaves gaps. What army would the Duke of Buckingham use for his 1484 revolt against Richard III, and what army does Henry VII use at Stoke in 1487?

The reason I ask is that I just checked a list for a comp which was labelled Lancastrian 1500. Technically there are no list benefits available, but it might affect a competition draw.

I think [T]udor covers Stoke as well, so is 1485-1488 effectively. Buckingham would I guess be [L], which I think should go all the way up to 1484. Its a list where Phil assumes a lot of knowledge (you have to know that you can't have a crowned Lancastrian king in 1483 for example). It should also cater for options that might have been, like a Lancastrian army in 1483, even if no battle took place that year. It also seems to completely ignore English armies in France.

Orcoteuthis

  • Guest
Re: Book 4 errata
« Reply #23 on: November 27, 2011, 10:18:53 AM »
In the Golden Horde and Successors list, the Crimean Khanate should perhaps be Cool rather than Cold, cf the Bosporan list.

Barritus

  • Guest
Re: Book 4 errata
« Reply #24 on: December 08, 2011, 12:17:57 PM »
A couple more WOTR English questions:

1. Is Lord Stanley compulsory if you take the army of Richard III at Bosworth? It's a case where a troop type is optional, but the alteration relating to it is compulsory.

2. Can stiffened billmen be mounted on horses?

Barritus

  • Guest
Re: Book 4 errata
« Reply #25 on: December 21, 2011, 12:51:59 PM »
And another WOTR issue: Do the compulsory minimums for allies apply to optional troops with compulsory minimums?

To use a specific example, imagine I want to put together a WOTR R3 army from the Battle of Bosworth, with two ally generals - Lord Stanley and the Duke of Northumberland. An R3 list can use the Northern border foot. These were troops raised by the Duke, and would logically be in his command. But according to the ally requirements, Lord Stanley would also need to have a least 2 elements of the border foot.

I wonder if this exeption should apply to the Shire levy troops too? Surely not all noblemen with independent retinues in these times would have been able to call up a levy, would they?

Orcoteuthis

  • Guest
Re: Book 4 errata
« Reply #26 on: December 22, 2011, 05:16:18 PM »

1. Is Lord Stanley compulsory if you take the army of Richard III at Bosworth? It's a case where a troop type is optional, but the alteration relating to it is compulsory.
I'd guess the intention is you have to take him, but it's not really clear.
Quote
2. Can stiffened billmen be mounted on horses?
By the letter of the list, I think not, as the retinue billmen are "replaced" by stiffened bills, and the horses are available only to retinue. But historically speaking it seems more than a little strange that if you mix two sorts of men, both of which can have horses, the mix can't have horses.

landmeister

  • Guest
Re: Book 4 errata
« Reply #27 on: January 29, 2012, 10:46:39 AM »
And now a question about list 39, Navarrese. Why free company troops can be commanded by Navarrese generals? Shouldn't they be commanded by a Free Company allied general only? Italians are so specified.  ???

tadamson

  • Guest
Re: Book 4 errata
« Reply #28 on: January 31, 2012, 03:11:29 PM »
And now a question about list 39, Navarrese. Why free company troops can be commanded by Navarrese generals? Shouldn't they be commanded by a Free Company allied general only? Italians are so specified.  ???

The Navarrese list includes the Navarrese Company.  Plus Navarese armies operating in France included large numbers of mercenaries at times. These were often integrated into the Navarrese forces rather than an 'allied' command.

landmeister

  • Guest
Re: Book 4 errata
« Reply #29 on: January 31, 2012, 03:52:34 PM »
Ok. Thank you.