Normandy Errata

[volgaG68]

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]

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.

 

[hongkongwargamer]

Ha! You should have mentioned!

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.

 

[Will Fleming]

Ha! You should have mentioned!

Well, that is after following you off the cliff and into the deep ocean of DFTB.....

 

[Rock SgtDan]

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]

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]

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]

Fighting in Bocage: Page 15, column 2, Figure 14D. S8 to S6 LOS should have a +1 Height Advantage.

 

[sunoftzu]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.