Normandy Errata

rreinesch

Elder Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
1,471
Reaction score
830
Location
Austin, TX
Country
llUnited States
Below is the combined errata for both BFP2: Operation Cobra and for Beyond the Beachhead2 (collectively referred to as "Normandy").

BFP 2: OPERATION COBRA
ERRATA


Articles
Fighting in Bocage: Page 17, column 2, paragraph 2. The American units entering EE2 cannot claim WA because of the now revealed Gun in DD1 shares a hexside. Figure 16B: Delete concealment counter in V8.

Counters
M4A3F is missing ID 'A' and fast turret ring
(Counter was reprinted in BFP 3)

Scenarios
All assembled American MMGs should have PP3.

BFP 15 (a): Replace the BI#s on the sheet, Germans with [119] and Americans with [258]
BFP 17: SBR 3. Replace “all setup but prior to game start” with 'ASOP step '1.11A'.
BFP 18: SBR 3. Replace “all setup but prior to game start” with 'ASOP step '1.11A'.
BFP 23: Change SBR 3 to: A +1 LV Hindrance (E3.1) is in effect.

Q and A
Q. Does the shellhole creation in scenarios BFP 17 and 18 eliminate woods?
A. Yes.

Q. In BFP 24, if a sniper is eliminated on one board, are snipers on the other two boards also eliminated?
A. Yes. They are the same sniper and share all results.

BEYOND THE BEACHHEAD 2
ERRATA

Scenarios

All assembled American MMGs should have PP3.
BtB 15 and BtB 16:
Firefly counters should have a ROF 1
Sherman V counters should have 13 MP and Front AF 8.

Q and A
Q. Does the ITR 10 HBR apply to Narrow Roads on the bocage boards?
A. Yes

Sticky notes associated with this errata is inserted below. For the letter-sized pdf, print on Avery 5265 with scaling and resizing turned off.
 
Last edited:

fwheel73

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Messages
1,643
Reaction score
82
Location
Oklahoma
Country
llUnited States
Below is the combined errata for both BFP2: Operation Cobra and for Beyond the Beachhead2 (collectively referred to as "Normandy").

[big snip]

Sticky notes associated with this errata is inseted below. For the letter-sized pdf, print on Avery 5265 with scaling and resizing turned off.
Rick & all the BFP folks,
You guys do great work.... thanks for the little fixes... and sticky too!!:)
Best regards,:salute:
John
 

Arlecchino

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
636
Reaction score
73
Location
Italy
Country
llItaly
The german 838 reinforcement of turn 4 in BtB7 - Blood on Hill 192 are assault engineer or not?
They're a pioneer battalion and have a flame thrower but no ssr say that they're assault engineer.
 

rreinesch

Elder Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
1,471
Reaction score
830
Location
Austin, TX
Country
llUnited States
The german 838 reinforcement of turn 4 in BtB7 - Blood on Hill 192 are assault engineer or not?
They're a pioneer battalion and have a flame thrower but no ssr say that they're assault engineer.
No, these guys do not happen to be assault engineers.

Rick
 

Arlecchino

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
636
Reaction score
73
Location
Italy
Country
llItaly
A question, why SSR 5 of the BtB 2 pack say that SCW could be used vs bocage, light bocage but the manual say that's not possible? some historical difference, point of view, or i miss some errata?
 

'Ol Fezziwig

Repressed Dissident
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
6,605
Reaction score
363
Location
hazy fold of reality
Country
llUnited States
A question, why SSR 5 of the BtB 2 pack say that SCW could be used vs bocage, light bocage but the manual say that's not possible? some historical difference, point of view, or i miss some errata?
The ASLRB disallows SCW v bocage to 'channel' usage towards vehicles or hard fortifications (etc), the design for effect theory. BFP, being a third party, is free to disagree and allow these attacks, though the player will bear the fruit of SCW loss through X'ing them out on infantry targets should Axis armour prowl nearby...

BFP is correct, though, these sort of attacks were made by SCW historically.
 

Arlecchino

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
636
Reaction score
73
Location
Italy
Country
llItaly
this mean that also german could use they're huge amount of panzerfaust vs infantry behind a bocage... that's an historical use of that weapon or some gamey use allowed by the rules?

In some scenario like BtB6 - Man against tank, the german could use up to 10pf vs american infantry as no tank are present in the us ob. I think that's would be considered into the design and playtest of the scenario?

I'm courious to know if that kind of use was historically realistic.
 
Last edited:

Chas

Senior Member
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
1,991
Reaction score
392
Country
llUnited States
Have you read the magazine?

this mean that also german could use they're huge amount of panzerfaust vs infantry behind a bocage... that's an historical use of that weapon or some gamey use allowed by the rules?

In some scenario like BtB6 - Man against tank, the german could use up to 10pf vs american infantry as no tank are present in the us ob. I think that's would be considered into the design and playtest of the scenario?

I'm courious to know if that kind of use was historically realistic.
What is the difference then in a 1945 all infantry German vs. whoever city fight?


Chas
 

Aaron Cleavin

Elder Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2004
Messages
3,095
Reaction score
573
Location
Sydney
Country
llAustralia
With PF at least there is a +1 to the usage dr vs non AFV's.

Allowing versus Bocage but requiring some kind of usage dr (1-3) but leader modifiable even if the leader doesn't direct the shot would I think give the right kind of effect.

If the opponents has any AFV's in hearing distance (16 hexes) then a similar dr for usage against ANYTHING except AFV might be considered.
 

Arlecchino

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
636
Reaction score
73
Location
Italy
Country
llItaly
I don't undestand your reply Chas... i'm not sayng that you're choice to allow SCW vs bocage is wrong. As new player and not an expert in history i'm only asking if this choise is historically allowed and because i think that's a big difference in the way a german play a bocage scenario if allowed to shot at bocage with pf.

I didn't read the magazine yet... i've ordered all BFP module from Le franc tireur the past week but they're not arrived yet, i'm only looking at the scenario card of a friend. I think that in the Operation Cobra magazine i'll find some answer to my question. ;-)

What i want to know, if possible, is why you allow the use of SCW vs bocage if the official rules don't allow that. So if someone can explaine a so big difference in the design decision i'll be happy. I've no problem with both rules, i only want to know why this different choice, and on what historical argument this decision was made. ;-)

I think that i'm right when i say that allow SCW vs bocage make the gameplay of a scenario a lot different.
 

Aaron Cleavin

Elder Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2004
Messages
3,095
Reaction score
573
Location
Sydney
Country
llAustralia
Until comparitively recently it WAS allowed to fire SCW at Bocage.
I believe this was only changed in AP4 (Or perhaps in errata in J6, J7)
 

Arlecchino

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
636
Reaction score
73
Location
Italy
Country
llItaly
Until comparitively recently it WAS allowed to fire SCW at Bocage.
I believe this was only changed in AP4 (Or perhaps in errata in J6, J7)
Really? Dunno that as i play from 1,5 year.... but i'm sure that i could find some flame war topic in the forum about that. ;-)
 

cujo8-1

The Earl of Burgundy
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
1,568
Reaction score
31
Location
ThunderDome
Country
llUnited States
Until comparitively recently it WAS allowed to fire SCW at Bocage.
I believe this was only changed in AP4 (Or perhaps in errata in J6, J7)
I believe it had never been allowed until Journal 7 (or is it Journal 8?) errata to the rulebook stated that SCW can indeed be fired at units behind the bocage.
 

Arlecchino

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
636
Reaction score
73
Location
Italy
Country
llItaly
Finally i received the pack from Le franc tireur with ItR, OC and BtB2.... i've read the article where chas explaine the rules for the bocage themed scenarios and finally i understand what he want say with the past reply. What i still don't understand is if there's historical evidence that Panzerfaust and Bazzoka was used vs infantry behind bocage.... (i' didn't read the all the BPP journal so if someone could tell me the right page where i could find information would be perfect!)
 

Chas

Senior Member
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
1,991
Reaction score
392
Country
llUnited States
Not the place for "reality" arguments. But you could find examples of more than just bocage.

Really appreciate you picking up our set of stuff and supporting our friends at LFT.

Thanks much,
Chas
 

Will Fleming

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2003
Messages
4,262
Reaction score
369
Location
Aboard the Pequod
Country
llUnited States
Minor point I hope, but I came out with one extra MMG counter on this. I noticed BFP-24 already includes the correct MMG, so maybe that is where it comes from???
 

rdw5150

it's just a game
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2003
Messages
8,123
Reaction score
655
Location
Erie, PA
First name
Roger
Country
llUnited States
I believe it had never been allowed until Journal 7 (or is it Journal 8?) errata to the rulebook stated that SCW can indeed be fired at units behind the bocage.
huh I thought it was allowed until just a few years ago when it was disallowed. Maybe I am remembering in reverse.

Peace

Roger
 

rreinesch

Elder Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
1,471
Reaction score
830
Location
Austin, TX
Country
llUnited States
Latest Normandy Errata

Below is the combined errata for both BFP2: Operation Cobra and for Beyond the Beachhead2 (collectively referred to as "Normandy"). Latest addition is the BtB14 counter errata.

BFP 2: OPERATION COBRA
ERRATA


Articles
Fighting in Bocage: Page 17, column 2, paragraph 2. The American units entering EE2 cannot claim WA because of the now revealed Gun in DD1 shares a hexside. Figure 16B: Delete concealment counter in V8.

Counters
M4A3F is missing ID 'A' and fast turret ring
(Counter was reprinted in BFP 3)

Scenarios
All assembled American MMGs should have PP3.

BFP 15 (a): Replace the BI#s on the sheet, Germans with [119] and Americans with [258]
BFP 15 & 16: US OOB: M4A3(105) and M4(105) should be ST. The M4A3(105)W counter name should be M4A3(105).
BFP 17: SBR 3. Replace “all setup but prior to game start” with 'ASOP step '1.11A'.
BFP 18: SBR 3. Replace “all setup but prior to game start” with 'ASOP step '1.11A'.
BFP 23: Change SBR 3 to: A +1 LV Hindrance (E3.1) is in effect.

Vehicle Notes
The counter designation for vehicle 9. M4A3C(105) is incorrect. Turret speed should be ST and vehicle designation should be “M4A3C(105)”.

Q and A
Q. Does the shellhole creation in scenarios BFP 17 and 18 eliminate woods?
A. Yes.

Q. In BFP 24, if a sniper is eliminated on one board, are snipers on the other two boards also eliminated?
A. Yes. They are the same sniper and share all results.

BEYOND THE BEACHHEAD 2
ERRATA

Scenarios

All assembled American MMGs should have PP3.
BtB 15 and BtB 16:
Firefly counters should have a ROF 1
Sherman V counters should have 13 MP and Front AF 8.
BtB 14: German PzJg III/IV counter should have a ROF of 1.

Q and A
Q. Does the ITR 10 HBR apply to Narrow Roads on the bocage boards?
A. Yes
 
Last edited:

rreinesch

Elder Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
1,471
Reaction score
830
Location
Austin, TX
Country
llUnited States
Re: Latest Normandy Errata

There was an error related to the front armor factor in the replacement counters for the Sherman V in the previous errata pdf files. The enclosed files fix that issue. All wording around the errata remains the same.

Rick

Normandy Sticky Errata in Letter format
View attachment 34256

Normandy Sticky Errata in A4 format
View attachment 34257
 
Top