Also on Page 10 of the Battles PDF under “Officers”
Most recent pdf draft, page 23, Mercenary officers: “The base level, cost, and characteristics of mercenary offers are noted on the adjoining table.”
Page 31: “Workers are cannot be formed into units on the battlefield except under exceptional circumstances or with magic.”
Also page 31: “Most creatures can carry a maximum of twice their normal load at full movement. When carrying more than their normal load, their movement rate is reduced to half.” Seems contradictory.
Mules are marked as Workers, but appear to also be usable as cavalry mounts, since the dwarven mounted crossbowmen ride them.
Do centaurs count as humanoid or non-humanoid for purposes of carrying capacity?
Earplugs equipment description, page 41 - “Commanders may issue these to troops to that will face harpies on the field of battle”
Line break issues between Prosthesis and Quintain
Page 55 - “The Exotic Creatures Roster (p. XX) has a list of weekly supply cost for other types of creatures.” Cost should probably be costs?
Page 56 - “A supply line becomes blocked if the route through passes through any hexes occupied by enemy forces” seems to have one through too many.
Page 60, inconsistency between examples - “its second division has three battalion-sized units” with “its second division has four battalion-sized goblin light infantry units”. Not critical, just momentarily jarring.
Page 62 - repeated use of “dominion morale” at top of second column. Probably meant domain morale.
Page 66 - The headings for the tables of engagement types by strategic stance combination all read Mutual Awareness.
Page 69 - “You can also check out D@W: Battles rulebook for the full details” should probably have a “the” between out and D@W
Page 70-71: Example inconsistency between “The Judge divides the wolf riders into three groups of 9 wolf riders each.” and “Rolling for the first group of 4 wolf riders,…”
Are flyer units eligible to pursue a defeated army that retained its own flyers or cavalry?
Noticed some stuff in the D@W: Campaigns layout draft. Here’s Chapter 1: Armies…
Pg. # Throughout the document, table titles are inconsistent in their capitalization. For example, some tables capitalize the prepositions, some do not.
Pg. 9 The text refers to the “Cost Per Week Per Mercenary Type” table as being below, but the formatting has pushed it above the note.
Pg. 11 The text refers to the “Mercenary GP Wage per Month” table as being below, but the formatting has pushed it to the page before the note (i.e. above).
Pg. 12 The text refers to the “Unit Loyalty” table, but doesn’t point out where it is. Admittedly, it is right below the text reference.
Pg. 12 The text refers to the “Exotic Mercenary Cost Per Time Period Multiplier” table as being adjacent, but the formatting has pushed it above the note.
Pg. 13 The example at the top of the right-hand column uses the form “Marcus’s” for the possessive; not sure if this or “Marcus’” is the currently accepted style.
Pg. 14 The text refers to the “Training and Equipment Time and Cost” table, but doesn’t point out where it is (below).
Pg. 14 Not a typo, but the first time I’ve noticed this:
“If conscripts are released from service by their leader, trained conscripts will become mercenaries or brigands…” all of them? Every time? Why do none of them return home to a life less dangerous?
Pg. 14 “In addition to conscripting peasants, the leader of a domain can
also levy a peasant militia…” is it just me, or does the wording of this sentence seems to imply that one cannot levy a peasant militia with also implementing conscription? I presume that is not the case, but I’m unsure whether this is ambiguously written, or a case of poor reading comprehension on my part.
Pg. 15 The last paragraph on the right-hand column should be referring to militia who are released from service, but instead refers to conscripts.
Pg. 16 The text refers to the “Follower Type and Equipment by Class” table, but does not point out where it is (above and below). The second portion of the table also has (cont.) after the title; is this standard style? What about (cont. from previous page) for clarity?
Pg. 17 The text refers to the Upkeep costs for slave soldiers as 3gp per month, and 16gp per month for ogres. Why don’t mounted slaves (e.g. cavalry, beast riders, etc.) cost more due to maintenance for their mounts? Slave goblin wolf riders suddenly seem very attractive…
Pg. 18 The last sentence of Example #1 is cumbersome, stating:
“…the slave soldiers can be trained as, e.g., light infantry or heavy cavalry, according to…”
How about:
“the slave soldiers can be trained (e.g. as light infantry or heavy cavalry) according to…”
Pg. 19 The text refers to the “Vassal Troops by Realm Size” table as being below, but the formatting has pushed it above the note.
Pg. 19 The text (last paragraph on the page) refers to the “Exotic Creatures Roster” as being on page “XX” instead of the actual page reference.
Pg. 20 The text uses no article for “Leadership proficiency,” but this is inconsistent in the document; in some places the definite article “the” is used for proficiencies.
Pg. 20 The Example has inconsistencies in the number of units or divisions. 4 divisions are created from 10 units; 2 units (heavy cavalry) in the 1st division, and the other three divisions have 3 units each (heavy infantry, light infantry and bowmen), totalling 11 units.
Pg. 20 Under the explanation for Leadership Ability, “e.g.” is used instead of i.e., when what is being presented (“4 plus Charisma bonus or penalty”) is the sole (alternate) meaning, not one example among many
Pg. 23 Under Creature Handler, “Some creature handlers are animal trainers themselves, while otherwise rely on Beast Friendship…” should read, “Some creature handlers are animal trainers themselves, while others rely on Beast Friendship…” instead
Pg. 24 Under Quartermaster, “A quartermaster is an experienced soldier who manages distribution of supplies and provision to the troops…” should read, “A quartermaster is an experienced soldier who manages distribution of supplies and provisions to the troops…”
Pg. 24 Under Siege Engineer there is no mention of replacing Artillerists and at what ratio (1:1?), even though their abilities would seem to allow them to do so…
Pg. 27 The Beastman Troop table’s line entry for “Goblin Troops” is improperly highlighted
Pg. 30 Under Size Category, “Gigantic creatures count as 24 men, s only 5 gigantic creatures…” should read, “Gigantic creatures count as 24 men, so only 5 gigantic creatures…”
Pg. 31 Under War Mounts the abbreviation “ML” is used for morale score, in spite of several previous uses of “morale score” and no prior explanation (e.g. “morale score (ML)”)
Pg. 31 Under Workers, “Workers are cannot be formed into units…” should read, “Workers cannot be formed into units…”
Pg. 31 Under Normal Movement, “Most creatures can carry a maximum of twice their normal load at full movement…” and, “When carrying more than their normal load, their movement rate is reduced to half…” are incompatible.
Pg. 32 Under Monthly Wage, “Owned, or enslaved sentient, creatures can sometimes…” should read, “Owned, or enslaved, sentient creatures can sometimes…”
Pg. 32 Under Supply Cost, “p.XX” should list the page number.
Pg. 32 Under Handler Cost, “p.XX” should list the page number.
Pg. 32 Under Total Cost, “Note that the creature were owned or enslaved…” should read, “Note that if the creature were owned or enslaved…” and, “…feel free to round them to ease of play!” should read, “…feel free to round them off for ease of play!”
Actually, this:
Pg. 32 Under Monthly Wage, “Owned, or enslaved sentient, creatures can sometimes…” would probably be clearer than my suggestion if you simply drop the commas all together.
I assumed that the XX page numbers were the norm at this stage, since I don’t recall seeing any page number references that weren’t of that form. Ctrl-F XX finds a bunch.
Also if we’re hitting inclarities rather than just clear errors, the reference to Legendary Leadership in the Morale section on officer abilities section kind of threw me; I assumed it was probably the 5th-level fighting-type +morale ability, but am pretty sure that it’s not called that in the Fighter description. The example tacitly clarified it, but there were a good couple seconds of confusion.
Page 75, example: “Now Marcus can assault with (24 + 15) 49 units, while Moruvai can still only defend with 24 units.” 24+15 = 39, not 49.
The circumvallation minimum in the Blockade Quick Reference on page 75 seems off; 20 units are worth 2500’ of circumvallation, not 250’.
Sabotage description on page 77 includes the note “(as skilled commanders tend to be better at guarding their supply train)”, despite being in the Blockade section where supply trains are not relevant.
Page 77, artillery ammunition - “For the defending army (which is usually out of supply), the daily cost represents consumption of artillery stored before the siege.” Should by “comsumption of artillery ammunition”.
Page 79 - How do reconnaissance rolls for detecting siege mines work? The set of relevant modifiers is likely very different from those for locating an army. Is it just unmodified?
Page 80 - “If a stronghold built on solid rock (such as a mountain-top fortress), its foundation is too hard to easily excavate, and is unlikely to readily collapse” should read “is built”.
Hugely helpful lists - thank you! Please keep posting any and everything you find.
I’ll get to chapter two tomorrow, and I’ll try and do one per day. I’ll also point out that I am not exhaustively checking tables, as that requires far more back-and-forth than I have time for at the moment.
FRACK!!! Internet connection frigged off, eating my post. FRAAACKKK!!!
Well, at least it was faster the second time, as a lot of it was from memory. Also on the plus side, I caught a couple more things I missed on the first pass. Hopefully I didn’t miss anything I originally caught…
Chapter 2: Equipment
Pg. 40 Under Craftsman’s Tools, “Craftsman’ tools are required…” should read, “Craftsman’s tools are required…”
Pg. 41 Under Crutch there’s no mention of what a effect a crutch actually has…
Pg. 41 Under Howdah conversions are given for weights from Stone into Pounds (e.g. 6 stone (60lb)) when no prior conversions were given for anything other than capacity. Why?
Pg. 41 Under Pavilion, “…measuring 24’ diameter and 12’ in height…” should read, “measuring 24’ in diameter and 12’ in height.”
Pg. 42 Under Prosthesis multipliers are given for different construction material (e.g. silver (x5)) with no explanation as to what is multiplied. Cost?
Pg. 42 The listing for Quintain has been pushed into the text for the previous entry (Prosthesis) by the formatting
Pg. 42 Under Shield, “…the shields’ interior can be used as a mirror…” should read, “…the shield’s interior can be used as a mirror.” (misplaced apostrophe)
Pg. 42 I’m a bad person because I lol’d at the example for Surgical Saw
Pg. 42 The “Artillery” table lists weight conversions from stone into pounds for all artillery. Why?
Pg. 43 Under Crew and Rate of fire it states the negative effects of not having an artillerist; can a siege engineer replace an artillerist?
Pg. 44 Under Battering Ram, “A battering ram weighs must be crewed with 5 man-sized creatures…” should read, “A battering ram must be crewed with 5 man-sized creatures…”
Also, the damage is listed in the description, giving both standard (“4d10 shp”) and 1/10th (“1d4 shp”) damage (for wood and stone, respectively). There is some inconsistency in that artillery doesn’t do this, and these rates (x1 and x1/10th) are explained under structures, later, which could result in confusion (e.g. 1/10th of 1/10th for stone structures).
Pg. 45 Under Moveable Gallery and Moveable Mantlet it states that, “creatures gain a +4 bonus to saving throws versus Blast caused by artillery, burning oil, or similar effects.” Does that exclude breath attacks, spells, etc.? The wording of, “…or similar effects…” seems to imply so.
Pg. 45 Under Screw it states that, “Each bore deals 3d10 shp of damage to wooden structures and 1d4+1 shp of damage to stone structures…” but this is at odds with the “SHP” entry on pg. 47, which would mean 3d10 shp to wood and 1d4-1 shp (or better, 1d3 shp) to stone.
Also, see the note for Battering Ram above.
Pg. 46 Under Siege Tower see the note for Moveable Gallery (pg 45) above.
Also, a huge siege tower lists its drawbridge as only 10’, as well as being on the 5th floor, 75’ up, all identical to a large siege tower. Is this correct?
Also, I know virtually nothing about classical siege warfare, but the siege tower entry states, “External crew generally stand outside the tower and pull it with ropes.” How do these crew members avoid being slaughtered when so exposed? The wikipedia (I know, I know!) entry for Helepolis suggests the crew pushed the tower from behind (though it doesn’t explain how). Please illuminate the darkness of my ignorance…
Pg. 46 Under EQUIPMENT AVAILABILITY ON CAMPAIGN the paragraph beginning, “An army of even modest size will be accompanied by a baggage train…” should be moved to before the “Army Size/Market Class” table for clarity. It’s a personal, minor thing, but starting a sub-section with a table is cumbersome. The next sub-section on STRONGHOLDS AND STRUCTURES suffers from the same problem, but there is no introductory text to move.
Also, “…as shown on the adjacent table…” should then read, “as shown on the table above.”
Pg. 48 Under Arrow Slit and Battlement: see Moveable Gallery (pg 45) above
Pg. 48 Under Wall it states, “Walls may be built up to 200’ high, but cost is doubled.” Is the cost doubled for anything over 60’ high?
Pg. 49 Under The Typical Labourer, “…every laborer has a construction rate of 1 2/3 sp…” should read, “…every laborer has a construction rate of 2/3rds sp per day…” for both correction and clarity.
Also, “…differentiate between unskilled laborers, skilled laborers craftsmen, and engineers…” should read, “…differentiate between unskilled laborers, skilled laborers, craftsmen, and engineers…” (missing comma)
Also, “Workers may be unskilled laborers, skilled laborers, craftsmen,
and/or engineers…” should probably be moved to directly after the sub-heading. I would also suggest the following for clarity (though it may be more trouble than it’s worth):
"The Typical Worker: Workers may be unskilled laborers, skilled laborers, craftsmen, and/or engineers.
If you don’t want or need to differentiate between unskilled laborers, skilled laborers, craftsmen, and engineers, you can simply assume that every worker has a construction rate of 2/3rds sp per day. Every 3,000 workers will construct 500gp per day. This is a good option for large armies on long campaigns.
Unskilled laborers might be peasants, slaves, prisoners, conscripts, or even mercenaries on labor detail." This improves clarity, but introduces another term that would need to be updated in subsequent paragraphs (although some already use the term “workers” interchangeably with “labourers”).
Also, undifferentiated labourers has a construction/wage rate lower than unskilled labour. Why? Balance? I seem to recall this being asked and answered before, but I can’t find the reference…
Also, “Characters with just one rank of Siege Engineering proficiency count as skilled labor, not siege engineers…” should read, “Characters with just one rank of Siege Engineering proficiency count as skilled laborers, not siege engineers.”
Pg. 50 Under CONSTRUCTION SITES it states, “Thus a project built with a work force of more than 3,000 workers will end up costing more (in gp of wages paid) than the labor cost of the project. However, the project will get built faster.” After reading this several times, it’s perfectly clear, but on initial reading it seemed counter-intuitive. The last sentence is the sticking point, as for workers beyond the first 3,000 the rate per labourer is SLOWER. Just wanted to mention my initial reaction.
Pg. 50 Under CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS the paragraph beginning, “Alternatively, raw materials may be bought with cash at a market…” should be moved to before the “Back to Basics” sub-heading for both clarity and continuity with costs and methods of obtaining construction materials.
Pg. 50 Under ASSISSTING CONSTRUCTION WITH MAGIC, “This construction rate only can be used on ditches, moats, and earthen ramparts!” should read, “This construction rate can only be used on ditches, moats, and earthen ramparts!”
Pg. 51 Under ASSISSTING CONSTRUCTION WITH MAGIC in the sentence that reads, “Apply 500gp towards the stronghold’s construction cost per wall of stone spell cast…” the word spell should not be highlighted in bold based on previous usage
Pg. 51 Under ARTILLERY AND SIEGE EQUIPMENT CONSTRUCTION, “The normal limits regarding construction sites not apply to artillery and siege equipment…” should read, “The normal limits regarding construction sites do not apply to artillery and siege equipment…”
Pg. 51 Under the “Spells Cast/Construction Effect” table spell-name highlighting in bold is applied inconsistently
Reading the Campaigns chapter, I see 1 2/3sp is being used consistently. Maybe “one 2/3sp” sould be better? I still find the original kludgy.
Page 80 - “Artillery and siege equipment do not count against maximum number of units”, while clear and concise, might benefit from a ‘the’ after ‘against’.
Under what circumstances might a besieged defender be able to defend with a number of units larger than his stronghold’s unit capacity… ?
Increasing the BR of all defending units by 1 is an interesting mechanic that makes 0.5 BR units (or 0.25 BR units like kobolds) dramatically more effective… just sort of curious to see the math on that one.
Sort of surprised medium ballistae are no better than light ballistae during assaults.
Can cauldrons be deployed by the attacker in an assault?
Do lieutenants provide a +1 to unit attack throws during assaults, as they do during normal campaign combat?
Page 82 - “Multiply the encounter distance by the ratio of the height of the stronghold walls relative to the height of a man” doesn’t really need the ‘relative’.
Page 83 - Really minor nitpick, but “a leader who sees his supplies dwindle and his army’s morale collapsing” should be either ‘dwindling’ or ‘collapse’, rather than mixing gerrunds with present-tense verbs. I’d go with dwindling.
Do spoils of war apply from each assault, or only at the end of the siege (sort of a ‘high risk, high reward’ thing) ?
Page 83 - “sometimes all that matter is who won” → matters. Probably… this might be technically correct as is? But awkward.
Page 84 - Example: “These count as [(4 x 1) + (2 x 8)] 24 bonus units,” should be 20.
Also on 84, “If Moruvai’s stronghold were an island-fortress, it would take Marcus 54 days to capture it instead of 18”. Island modifier is x4, and 18 x 4 = 72.
Page 87, Mercenaries event - Clarify that non-human mercenaries do not have a 25% chance of being veterans?
It would’ve been neat for say bloody flux, with its low lethality, to have been unusually virulent.
Would also have been interesting to have good / bad omens be more probable; the soldiery are a superstitious lot, and will find omens in anything. Another good possibility there would be for ‘divine intervention’, which is to say making sacrifices to appease the gods and avert ill fortune or curse one’s enemies.
Upon further consideration, that sounds like a good idea for some divine spell research…
Oh, that’s what Legendary Leadership was referring to! Huh.
If you get local guides, then they leave, can you retrace your movements through the terrain they led you through? Likewise, is +strategic movement an ability Explorers can get via proficiency? Just feels dissociative to combine this explanation with this effect, and not make it available by other means. (I guess that sort of applies to much of this table; I guess these results are all reasonable outcomes for particularly good or poor planning on the PCs’ part. Severe weather - Don’t invade Russia in the fall!)
Ministers - “d6 clerics of level 1d4 announce join the campaign and begin ministering to the troops.”
How does the iniative victory from Plans Discovered work in situations where there are more than two armies in the area?
Siege train problems - “otherwise, it saves a normal man.”
Also “remember that repair rate for wood is 5 shp per gp of construction rate” could use a ‘the’.
Spy Caught - In the case where there were no spies infiltrated, the text states that you caught and killed a turncoat. Is his subsequent interrogation necessarily by magic, or is non-lethal capture possible? Does a (speak-with-dead’d) turncoat know things about the enemy army, or is that intended just for actual spies?
Does Calm Amidst the Storm cancel all other vagaries of battle if multiple are rolled on the d4?
Culmination is not bolded.
Debris, Heavy - “breached stone wall” should probably be plural, in keeping with the rest of the sentence.
Deserters - “PCs and NPCs from their side may attempt to rally them to return to the fight by making reaction rolls.” That’s a rather meta way of putting it 
Marauders - would read better as “own sinister ends”
Page 92 Example - “Marcus’s army is trapped in the Waste with enemy straddling its lines of supply.” Enemy needs a ‘the’ or ‘his’ or something.
Chapter 3: Campaigns…
Pg. 53 Under Regions, “Military campaign take place within regions…” should read, “Military campaigns take place within regions…”
Pg. 53 Under STRATEGIC STANCE, “Divisions in the rear guard cover the flank of the evading army’s other divisions…” should read, “Divisions in the rear guard cover the flank of an evading army’s other divisions…” as no definite evading army has been defined for the definite article “the.”
Pg. 54 Under MOVING ARMIES the text refers to “Encounter Movement/Daily Movement/Weekly Movement” table as being adjacent, but formatting has pushed it below the note.
Pg. 54 Under MOVEMENT OF LARGE ARMIES the paragraph beginning, “Most armies occupy one 6-mile hex or less, and can march…” should be moved to before the “Movement of Large Armies” table for clarity. It’s a personal, minor thing, but starting a sub-section with a table is cumbersome. Feel free to say I’m crazy.
Pg. 54 Under MOVEMENT OF LARGE ARMIES, “…until the armies regroup by
moving adjacent to each other…” is unclear. Into adjacent hexes? Adjacent to each other in a single hex?
Pg. 54 Under EXAMPLE, “…a typical construction rate of 1 2/3sp per day…” for which I’ll again suggest, “a typical construction rate of one 2/3sp per day…” for clarity.
Pg. 54 Under SUPPLYING ARMIES, “First it must be able to pay a supply cost…” should read, “First, it must be able to pay a supply cost…” (missing comma)
Pg. 55 Under SUPPLY COST, “…has a list of weekly supply cost for other types…” should read, “…has a list of weekly supply costs for other types…”
Pg. 55 Under Carnivorous Troops, “…these units are sometimes fed battle casualties or prisoners captured in battle or pillage…” should probably read, “…these units are sometimes fed battle casualties or prisoners captured in battle or by pillage…” as both terms (captured in battle and pillage) are being called out as specific, game-rule defined activities.
Also, Ghouls are an interesting corner case here. They are called out as carnivorous, implying that they need supply. However, they are also undead, and that implies that they, like constructs, can ignore supply. Which is it? What about Vampires?
Pg. 56 Under EXAMPLE #2, “Cyfaraun now is worth only (1,950 + 55,650) 57,600gp as a supply base…” should read, “Cyfaraun is now worth only (1,950 + 55,650) 57,600gp as a supply base.”
Pg. 56 Under LINE AND LENGTH OF SUPPLY, “A supply line becomes blocked if the route through passes through any hexes occupied by…” should read, “A supply line becomes blocked if the route passes through any hexes occupied by…”
Also, “Count each jungle, mountain, or swamp hex counts as two hexes. Count every two hill or woods hexes count as three hexes…” should read, “Count each jungle, mountain, or swamp hex as two hexes. Count every two hill or woods hexes as three hexes…”
Pg. 57 Under REQUISITIONING AND LOOTING SUPPLIES is states that, “Looting will
yield up to 20gp of supplies per peasant family, but the more that is taken the less remains for the peasants to survive on. For each 20gp of supplies looted, one peasant family is lost. This represents the flight of farmers to the woods, starvation from soldiers stealing all the food, and casualties from resistance to the looting. A domain can be looted until no peasant families remain, yielding supplies totaling 60gp per family.” How is 60gp acquired when 20gp would eliminate the family? If I loot 60gp per family I would seem to have looted every family in the domain to death three times over…
Pg. 57 Under RECONNAISSANCE ROLL PROCEDURE the paragraph beginning, “To make a reconnaissance roll, the Judge rolls 2d6 and…” should be moved to before the “Reconnaissance Rolls” table for clarity. It’s a personal, minor thing, but starting a sub-section with a table is cumbersome. Feel free to say I’m crazy.
Pg. 60 The “Prisoner Information” table is missing a “Common Prisoner” column
Pg 60 Under Prisoners, “…roll 2d6 on the Results of Interrogation table…” should read, “…roll 2d6 on the Prisoner Interrogation table…” (or the table title should be changed).
Also, the table location isn’t referenced (it’s below).
Pg. 61 Under EXAMPLE the “reaction roll table” is referred to, along with a “friendly, helpful” result, even though the previous section was about the “Prisoner Interrogation” table
Pg. 61 Under Stealing, “Attempting to steal the emblem of the entire army imposes a penalty of -10 on the proficiency throw, but if successful the entire army must make a morale roll at a -1 penalty.” Does this mean each unit in the army (I presume so)?
Pg. 63 Under PILLAGING DOMAINS the paragraph beginning, “Instead of integrating a conquered domain into his realm…” should be moved to before the “Domain Pillaging Requirements” table for clarity. It’s a personal, minor thing, but starting a sub-section with a table is cumbersome. Feel free to say I’m crazy.
Also, “Captives can be kept as slaves or ransomed or sold for 40gp each…” should read, “Captives can be kept as slaves or ransomed/sold for 40gp each…” or, “Captives can be kept as slaves, or ransomed or sold for 40gp each…” for clarity
Chapter 4: Battles…
Pg. 66 The “strategic situation” tables are mislabled, all titled as “Mutual Awareness”
Also, “In unilateral surprise awareness, the aware army is Army A…” should read, “In unilateral awareness, the aware army is Army A…”
Pg. 66 Under RESOLVING BATTLES, “Each army leader selects one or more units to participate in the battle…” should probably read something like, “Each army leader selects one or more units to participate in the battle from those available based on the type of battle dictated by the strategic situation…” for clarity
Pg. 69 Under Battle Rating for Exotic Units, “…the Judge may at his discretion change the number of special abilities…” should read, “the Judge may, at his discretion, change the number of special abilities…” (missing commas)
Also, “…based on the creature’s possession of magic items, longrange
weapons or other advantages or disadvantages…” should read, “…based on the creature’s possession of magic items, longrange weapons, or other advantages or disadvantages…” (missing comma to match previously used style for lists)
Pg. 69 Under SURPRISE, “(e.g., ambush, envelopment, deep envelopment, and…” should read, “(e.g. ambush, envelopment, deep envelopment, and…” (extra comma to match previously used style for examples)
Pg. 70 Under EXAMPLE, “…does not qualify as a hero because as an NPC he needs at least eight levels…” should read, “…does not qualify as a hero because as an NPC he needs at least seven levels…” based on the previously listed criteria
Pg. 70 Under HEROIC FORAYS the paragraph beginning, “Instead of treating heroes as units…” should be moved to before the “BR Staked/Hero is…” table for clarity. It’s a personal, minor thing, but starting a sub-section with a table is cumbersome. Feel free to say I’m crazy.
Also, the paragraph beginning, “When the foray begins…” should be moved to before the “Terrain/Encounter Distance (yds.)” table for clarity. It’s a personal, minor thing, yada-yada-yada…
Pg. 71 Under MORALE COLLAPSE, “…until eventually the army is swept away in a route…” should read, “until eventually the army is swept away in a rout…”
Also, “The total number of units destroyed is equal to…” should read, “The total number of units destroyed in the battle thus far is equal to…” or something similar for clarity. Otherwise following on from the previous point can be construed as meaning "total number of units destroyed during the preceding round.
Pg. 71 Under MORALE ROLLS, “…and consults the Unit Morale table…” no location is given for the table (adjacent). Admittedly, it’s indented into the text and hard to miss.
Also, it states, “The die roll should be modified based on the army and unit modifiers listed on the Morale Modifiers table to the left…” but the formatting has pushed the table on to the following page (the Unit Morale table is to the left).
Pg. 71 Under Rout, “…and counts as destroyed for morale purposes.” What does this mean for morale rolls? Does this trigger additional rolls? Rolls next turn? Is it a mistake that should instead refer to “battle resolution purposes?”
Pg. 72 Under RETREAT, “…the army may choose to retreat into an adjacent empty hex (risking loss of supply) or it may retreat along its line of supply…” should probably read, “…the army may choose to retreat into an adjacent empty hex (risking loss of supply), or it may retreat along its line of supply…” (missing comma to match previously used style)
Pg. 73 Under EXAMPLE, “…led by 9th level fighter…” should read, “…led by a 9th level fighter…”
Pg. 73 Under EXAMPLE, “…so the commanders receive 2,250XP; 1,350XP; and 900XP respectively…” should read, “so the commanders receive 2,250XP; 1,350XP; and 900XP, respectively…” (missing comma)
Chapter 5: Sieges…
Pg. 75 Under Sieges Without Maps, “…dividing the stronghold or urban settlement’s gp value by 8 and round up…” should read, “…dividing the stronghold or urban settlement’s gp value by 8 and rounding up.”
Also, there is an extra line break between, “Wooden strongholds have 1/10th the shp of a stone stronghold…” and “…but comparable unit capacity.”
Also, under EXAMPLE, “The stronghold has 25,000 shp and unit capacity 24…” reads awkwardly, and might be better as, “The stronghold has 25,000 shp and
a unit capacity of 24.”
Also, “Thus any attempt to assault…” should read, “Thus, any attempt to assault…” (missing comma)
Also, “…assaulting units up against defending unit at a 1:1 ratio…” should read, “…assaulting units up against defending units at a 1:1 ratio.”
Pg. 75 Under BLOCKADE, my usual craziness, move the first paragraph before the “Blockade Quick Reference” table.
Pg. 76 Under BLOCKADING WITH UNITS, “…they are able to patrol 250’ as well as 120 infantry troops…” should read, “…they are able to patrol as well as 120 infantry troops…”
Pg. 76 Under CIRCUMVALLATION, “…wooden palisades (8’ high x 1” thick), trenches (10’ wide x 5’ deep) and earthen ramparts…” should read, “…wooden palisades (8’ high x 1” thick), trenches (10’ wide x 5’ deep), and earthen ramparts…” (missing comma to match previously used style)
Pg. 77 Under Smuggling, “The perpetrator can smuggle extra supplies by taking a -1 penalty on the proficiency throw per 1,000gp.” Does mean a flat 1,000gp, or 1,000gp per level?
Pg. 77 Under Sabotage, “…skilled commanders tend to be better at guarding their supply train…” should read, “…skilled commanders tend to be better at guarding their stored supplies…”
Also, what does 1,000gp refer to, as above
Pg. 77 Under REDUCTION, “…hamper its defense: Each 1,000 shp of damage…” should read, “…hamper its defense: each 1,000 shp of damage…”
Pg. 77 Under Ammunition the text states, “The daily cost of ammunition is listed on the Artillery Bombardment table…” but doesn’t mention where the table is (below).
Pg. 79 Under REDUCTION BY MAGIC, my usual craziness, move the first paragraph before the “Spell/SHP Damage” table.
Pg. 79 Under EXAMPLE, “On a natural “2,” the workers…” and, "…Marcus watches in glee as Moruvai’s curtain walls go “BOOM!” both place punctuation inside the quotations. There are numerous other places in the document (everywhere up to this point, I believe) where this was not done. I thought this was a style choice up until now (that I’m unfamiliar with), but perhaps not…
Pg. 80 Under Impregnable Strongholds, “If a stronghold built on solid rock (such as a mountain-top fortress), its foundation is too hard…” should read, “If a stronghold is built on solid rock (such as a mountain-top fortress), its foundation is too hard…”
Pg. 80 Under Arson, “The perpetrator can set a larger fire by taking a -1 penalty on the proficiency throw per 4d6 x 10 additional shp.” Is this a flat amount or per level?
Pg. 81 Under Notes: presumably a Cauldron would require a siege tower higher than the walls to be used by the besiegers, no? Once again, totally ignorant of late antiquity siege warfare…
Pg. 82 Heroic Forays During Assaults: it is unclear how targets are chosen by either the besieger or defender of a heroic foray. I suppose the same is true during regular heroic forays, but it seems more relevant here, as heroes are likely to do things like attack a particular point (gate, tower, breach, etc.), piece of equipment (battering ram, siege tower, catapult, etc.), or individual (leader of the assault, king of the castle, etc.). How is this determined? Does it all come down to what the player’s say and Judge-ment? For example, why would anyone have their artillery amongst their allies, as it is unlikely to help (inside minimum range), and may be destroyed by the foray…
Pg. 82 Under EXAMPLE, “The remaining 3 units (360 men) also become prisoners…” this seems obvious for the losing defender, but wasn’t mentioned in the text of the rules before this example.
Chapter 6: Vagaries…
Pg. 86 Under Note, “In all other cases, the leader will gain or lose company-sized units of 120 infantry or 60 cavalry.” What about very small domains, such as under a baron or marquis? 120 infantry could potentially double an army at platoon scale…
Pg. 86 Under Bold Captain, “In all other cases, he has the characteristics of a mercenary captain.” Same as above, what about very small domains and platoon scale?
Pg. 88 Under THE VAGARIES OF WAR, “Use of the Vagaries of War table during sieges is highly recommend…” should read, “Use of the Vagaries of War table during sieges is highly recommended.”
Pg. 88 Under THE VAGARIES OF WAR, “Notes: Certain vagaries will cause…” should read, “Note: Certain vagaries will cause…”
Pg. 88 Under Notes, “In all other cases, the leader will gain or lose company-sized units of 120 infantry or 60 cavalry…” Same as above, what about very small domains?
Pg. 88 Under Brigands, “…a 5th level fighter with command characteristics of a mercenary captain…” should read, “a 5th level fighter with the command characteristics of a mercenary captain…”
Also, “…a 9th level fighter with command characteristics of a mercenary colonel…” should read, “a 9th level fighter with the command characteristics of a mercenary colonel…”
Pg. 89 Under Disease, “This vagary represents something much worse: A major epidemic breaking out amidst the army…” should read, “This vagary represents something much worse: a major epidemic breaking out amidst the army…”
Pg. 89 Under Friendly Lord, “…the lord will expect his domain to be protected from looting, conquest and pillage…” should read, “…the lord will expect his domain to be protected from looting, conquest, and pillage…”
Pg. 89 Under Legendary Leadership, “…or “Hammer of the Scots”. His morale…” should read, “…or “Hammer of the Scots.” His morale…” (moved period inside quotes; see earlier note about punctuation and quotes)
Pg. 89 Under Ministers, “2d6 clerics of level 1d4 announce join the campaign…” should read, “2d6 clerics of level 1d4 join the campaign…”
Pg. 90 Under Siege Train Problems, “…otherwise, it saves a normal man…” should read, “…otherwise, it saves as a normal man.” Otherwise, that’s some awfully heroic artillery!
Pg. 90 Under Supply Boon, “…is raised by 1 for purposes of equipment availability…” should read, “…is raised by 1 for the purposes of equipment availability…”
Pg. 91 Under Battle Standards, “…if the PC staked 2 points of BR when they entered the foray…” should read, “…if the PCs staked 2 points of BR when they entered the foray…”
Pg. 91 Under Bombardment, “…against each creature in the foray.” Bwa-? With a battle standard neaby, there could easily be 1440 troops per side in the foray (120 member infantry, BR.5)…
Pg. 91 The sub-heading Culmination is not highlighted in bold.
Pg. 91 Under Debris, Dangerous, “The battlefield is punctuated with breached stone wall…” should read, “The battlefield is punctuated with breached stone walls…”
Pg. 91 Under Deserters it states, “The deserters will enter the battlefield from the enemy’s side…” but under the circumstances (deserters are from the side with the lower HD total), who is friendly, and who is the enemy?
Pg. 92 Under Marauders, “The brigands will attack weak and damaged creatures and make off with their carried equipment…” should read, “The brigands will attack weak and damaged creatures, and make off with their carried equipment.” (missing comma)
Pg. 92 Under Monsters, “The Judge may pick the monster type or determine it randomly based on…” should read, “The Judge may pick the monster type, or determine it randomly based on…” (missing comma)
Pg. 92 Under Reinforcements, “Additional troops join the foray from one of the sides 1d4 rounds after it begins…” should probably read, “Additional troops join the foray from one of the sides, 1d4 rounds after it begins.” (clarity)
Pg. 92 Under Volly of Arrows, “…against each creature in the foray.” See Bombardment (pg. 91) above.
Whew! That took a lot, but went a bit faster than I’d expected. I’m sure some of this stuff is actually style choice by your editor (please apologize to that individual for me), and some of it I’m sure I’m just plain wrong about. Nevertheless, I hope it helps!
Almost forgot: I love the way the book is coming together, both aesthetically, and content-wise!
Thanks so much for the close-eyed review.
It’s always galling to see how many errors and inconsistencies I leave in, despite my best efforts to write perfect text. Thank goodness for the ACKS community…if it weren’t for you guys, these books would be (even more) riddled with errors.