Normandy Errata

volgaG68

Fighting WWII One DR At A Time
Joined
Jun 15, 2012
Messages
2,886
Reaction score
917
Location
Hays, KS
Country
llUnited States
Re: Latest Normandy Errata

The originals are the correct ones. We'll should be able to get those corrected with our reprint of CoS coming up.
Thanks for the confirmation, Rick.

Would putting them in a new product be an option as well?
Yes. We could probably squeeze them into the counters for Objective:Schmidt.
:toast:

For those who have all current BFP products and don't wish to buy a 2nd (or 3rd, 4th, etc) copy on them, that would be the by far preferred solution.
To be truthful, I do not mind if they are not reprinted at all. The original O:C counter being correct, the whole 'white-core' issue becomes moot with aircraft as they are openly placed on the map and never have concealment. If it was one of the AFV variety from O:C, I would say yes, definitely reprint them; but on aircraft, no. Besides HG-14 "Tigers On The Hill", from whence this observation actually occurred, the '44A and '44D variants are used in no other scenarios outside of O:C, AFAIK. A few B&J scenarios use different variants that are unaffected.

Only the most detail-oriented, obsessive-compulsive, perfectionist personalities would seek to redress this issue with yet another counter reprint, namely most of us ASL players and BFP itself :laugh: . Besides the excellent scenarios, counters, booklets, and maps, perhaps that is why BFP is such a no-brainer purchase for many of us. I'm eagerly awaiting Objective:Schmidt regardless of whether or not the corrected counters are included!
 

Will Fleming

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2003
Messages
4,309
Reaction score
383
Location
Adrift on the Pequod
Country
llUnited States
Re: Latest Normandy Errata

Not that the counter will matter to me at all, but sign me up for Objective: Schmidt!

Gonna try and take a deep dive into B&J for missing gems, then CoS and finally PiF.
 

Rock SgtDan

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Messages
2,534
Reaction score
108
Location
State of Confusion
First name
Dan
Country
llSlovenia
Sticky notes associated with this errata is inserted below. For the letter-sized pdf, print on Avery 5265 with scaling and resizing turned off.
Probably lost in the transition. Does Post#1 contain the latest errata? It seems you previously just entered new posts. Much easier if #1 is dated & kept up to date.
 

rreinesch

Elder Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
1,511
Reaction score
922
Location
Austin, TX
Country
llUnited States
Looks like files associated with the links (and the links in some cases) got lost during the move. Unfortunate. I'll go through and figure out what's missing and get the latest and greatest set back available. Part of the issue is that when a post gets old enough, even if you are the author you can no longer edit it. Maybe that is different in the this new software.
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,320
Reaction score
3,283
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
Part of the issue is that when a post gets old enough, even if you are the author you can no longer edit it. Maybe that is different in the this new software.
At the moment you can. I can edit a post of mine from 2009. Whether that is going to be a permanent feature or just an artefact of the recent bulk loading of the old data is another question.
 

rreinesch

Elder Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
1,511
Reaction score
922
Location
Austin, TX
Country
llUnited States
Fighting in Bocage: Page 15, column 2, Figure 14D. S8 to S6 LOS should have a +1 Height Advantage.
 

sunoftzu

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2005
Messages
856
Reaction score
323
Location
Taipei, Taiwan
Country
llTaiwan
In BFP-017 "Seize That Crossroad", SBR 3 mentions immobilization and a +1 TC for tanks in a shellhole hex. But the only tanks are Dug-in tanks, which like Armored Cupolas don't take Immob TCs. What's the intention here?

John.
 

rreinesch

Elder Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
1,511
Reaction score
922
Location
Austin, TX
Country
llUnited States
In BFP-017 "Seize That Crossroad", SBR 3 mentions immobilization and a +1 TC for tanks in a shellhole hex. But the only tanks are Dug-in tanks, which like Armored Cupolas don't take Immob TCs. What's the intention here?

John.
See D5.5. This is to see if the crews of those AFVs decide they don't like being stuck in an already immobilized vehicle that has ordnance falling on it and decide to bail.
 

sunoftzu

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2005
Messages
856
Reaction score
323
Location
Taipei, Taiwan
Country
llTaiwan
See D5.5. This is to see if the crews of those AFVs decide they don't like being stuck in an already immobilized vehicle that has ordnance falling on it and decide to bail.

As per D9.54 "A Dug-In AFV is treated as an Armored Cupola except as stated otherwise."

So the 4th sentence of D9.51 seems to trump that "However, Immobilization TC are never required".

At the very least, SBR 3 should clearly indicate that an Immob TC (D5.5) is required here.

John.
 

rreinesch

Elder Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
1,511
Reaction score
922
Location
Austin, TX
Country
llUnited States
As per D9.54 "A Dug-In AFV is treated as an Armored Cupola except as stated otherwise."

So the 4th sentence of D9.51 seems to trump that "However, Immobilization TC are never required".

At the very least, SBR 3 should clearly indicate that an Immob TC (D5.5) is required here.

John.
Dug into this one a little more. Looks like we had a cut and paste error from BFP-18. Have added the following Q&A to the errata on the BFP support site.

Q: In BFP-17, SBR 3, SBR 3 mentions immobilization and a +1 TC for tanks in a shellhole hex. But the only tanks are Dug-in tanks, which like Armored Cupolas don't take Immob TCs. What's the intention?
A: The Dug-in tanks will not take the Immob TCs. Disregard the comment in the SBR and follow D9.54.
 

sunoftzu

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2005
Messages
856
Reaction score
323
Location
Taipei, Taiwan
Country
llTaiwan
Dug into this one a little more. Looks like we had a cut and paste error from BFP-18. Have added the following Q&A to the errata on the BFP support site.

Q: In BFP-17, SBR 3, SBR 3 mentions immobilization and a +1 TC for tanks in a shellhole hex. But the only tanks are Dug-in tanks, which like Armored Cupolas don't take Immob TCs. What's the intention?
A: The Dug-in tanks will not take the Immob TCs. Disregard the comment in the SBR and follow D9.54.
Cheers for the clarification.

FWIW, in our recent game, none of the shellholes landed anywhere near the Dug-in Tanks. But we were just wanting to be good ASL citizens and help put a defining line down an otherwise gray area.

John.
 
Top