RF errata?

Honza

The Art Of Wargames
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
12,254
Reaction score
1,088
Location
Oxfordshire
Country
llCzechia
I do not have my RF yet, but I have been told that in RO CG III (The Russian attack in December) the Russians only have 4 attack chits out of a 16 day CG. Is this in fact an error? Should it be the Germans who have four attack chits?
 

Honza

The Art Of Wargames
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
12,254
Reaction score
1,088
Location
Oxfordshire
Country
llCzechia
That sounds suspiciously like there is not an issue. Did the guy who said the Russians only get four attack chits get it wrong?
 

Perry

Elder Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2003
Messages
1,346
Reaction score
1,038
Location
Baltimore, MD
Country
llUnited States
That sounds suspiciously like there is not an issue. Did the guy who said the Russians only get four attack chits get it wrong?
I was hoping it would sound like there will probably be an official answer soon.
 

Honza

The Art Of Wargames
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
12,254
Reaction score
1,088
Location
Oxfordshire
Country
llCzechia
Thank you for the clarification.
 

apbills

Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
2,458
Reaction score
93
Location
Pewaukee, WI
Country
llUnited States
In RO CG III the Initial German Forces have listed "20L(8) AA x 2". Is this supposed to be note 26, the 20L(6) AA? I don't have an ordnance note with an [8] IFE listed.
 

Honza

The Art Of Wargames
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
12,254
Reaction score
1,088
Location
Oxfordshire
Country
llCzechia
In RO CG III the Initial German Forces have listed "20L(8) AA x 2". Is this supposed to be note 26, the 20L(6) AA? I don't have an ordnance note with an [8] IFE listed.
I think you are correct. In the RF countermix they have provided 20L(6) AA counters.
 

apbills

Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
2,458
Reaction score
93
Location
Pewaukee, WI
Country
llUnited States
Just a pet peeve of mine, but I see the wording in 11.6122 was not changed. "Each side whose SAN is currently zero has it automatically raised to 2". Per A14.4, "If the SAN is reduced to 1, remove the Sniper Target Selection counter from the game." so technically, you never get to a zero SAN.
 

apbills

Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
2,458
Reaction score
93
Location
Pewaukee, WI
Country
llUnited States
have found two sentences in the new rules where the ≥ or ≤ sign is removed. the first is in 11.6142:
"Each side makes a Secret dr on the following table for each friendly (including Captured) non-Isolated, non-Dug-In Retained AFV Pltn (or part thereof) [EXC: German SPW Pltn] that has had one AFV of its Pltn on the map in at least one CG scenario to determine whether the Pltn (or remainder thereof) must be Withdrawn." is the old sentence.
"Each side makes a Secret dr on the following table for each friendly (including Captured) non-Isolated, non-Dug-In Retained AFV Pltn (or part thereof) [EXC: German SPW Pltn] that has had one AFV of its Pltn on the map in at least one CG scenario to determine whether the Pltn (or remainder thereof) must be Withdrawn." is the new sentence.

11.6143 had the following:
"A dr of the current turn number immediately places that AFV under Recall."
and is now:
"A dr of the current turn number immediately places that AFV under Recall."

Are these removals mistakes?
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
16,145
Reaction score
2,632
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
Those two signs were not present in the 2nd Edition Chapter O, which I'll bet was used as input. Which would explain their absence. The first one is not crucial (IMO), but the second one does change the rule.

Guess no one spotted their absence in the 2nd Edition Chapter O all these years. :)
 
Last edited:

Perry

Elder Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2003
Messages
1,346
Reaction score
1,038
Location
Baltimore, MD
Country
llUnited States
We have added two errata to the list on our Red Factories product page:

O11.57: In the INITIAL GERMAN OB, replace “20L(8) AA × 2” with “20L(6) AA × 2”.

O11.6143: lines 3-4, after “dr of” add “≤” so the third sentence starts “A dr of the current turn…”.

 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
16,145
Reaction score
2,632
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden

Honza

The Art Of Wargames
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
12,254
Reaction score
1,088
Location
Oxfordshire
Country
llCzechia
In RO CG III A Party In Our Streets when there is a Russian Assault do they have to capture 12 extra stone locations (which is the same as a Russian assault in all the other CGs) or do they have to capture 24? (which is what the German normally needs to win his assault).
 

Honza

The Art Of Wargames
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
12,254
Reaction score
1,088
Location
Oxfordshire
Country
llCzechia
Since the Russians are attacking in RO CG III I figured the VC for the CG scenarios would be different than when they defend in a CG.
 
Top