Excited to get my copy today!

Looks really good overall, and I'm keen to do up some army lists for the Traveller universe and the 2300AD universe.

Anyway, a few possible errata points I spotted:

1. On page 9, the LOS example photo and the text do not completely match.  The text says a Restricted arc is 90 degrees, while the illustration shows 45 degrees.

2. I will be playing that "other units, except Recce units" of an equal or greater profile block Line of Fire but do not block Line of Sight (I think this is more reflective of the ground scale, and allows one to spot through friendly units but not to engage the enemy with direct fire if friendly units are in the way.  This will be the House Rule I'm using).

3. On page 12, the Concealed Units rule I think should include Average profile units along with Small/Low profile units in the first sentence.  This is implied by the second bullet point under this sentence which reads, in part, "or they are Average profile".

4. On page 13, the LOS example states that unit F does not have LOS due to "the BUA blocking their view" to all enemy units. Yet on page 10 under High Area Terrain we are told that this includes BUAs.  Furthermore, in that rule we are told that LOS for Low profile units extends 5cm "through" High Area Terrain.  Hence, for Unit F in the example what is important is whether of not the LOS it draws through the BUA covers more or less than 5cm.  This isn't brought out in the example.  Similarly, for unit B looking at unit 1, the important question is whether the LOS through the woods (High Area Terrain) is 5cm or more.

5. On page 25, under Electronic Warfare, the rule states at "3." that "the following adjustment factors are applied against the defender's score".  Is this in fact the case? Or are the adjustment factors actually applied against the base Electronic Warfare score determined in step "2." above?
Similarly, in the example on the next page we're told the adjustments are being made to the defender's score, but actually it seems they are being made to the base Electronic Warfare score.
Finally at "f." we're told to "deduct the command values of each armies CO".  It seems what is actually meant here is that we compare the CVs of each armies CO and deduct the smaller from the larger and use the difference as a modifier to the base Electronic Warfare score.

6. On page 29, the initiative phase example in para.4 refers to infantry units 5 and 6, but they are not marked on the first two illustrations.

7. On page 32, under Commanding Officer the second sentence ends with a closing bracket - but there is no open bracket anywhere to be found so it isn't clear whether some text might be missing.

8. On pages 36-7, under the Communicate action it says a Recce unit can try to communicate with the nearest command unit and if successful one option is that it can spot the nearest concealed enemy unit.  Yet on page 37 there is a separate action titled Spotting Concealed Troops.  What, if anything, is the difference?

9. On page 41, in the chart alongside Tracked it says initially that "Tracked units treat all...Walls...as Open terrain".  Yet then it says you must stop on contact with a Wall, and can only proceed the next turn.  So is a Wall open terrain for movement purposes of a tracked vehicle, or not?

10. On page 44, under Area Terrain it states that High Area Terrain includes BUAs.  Under Dense Terrain it states that it includes "built-up areas that include items such as areas of dense industrial plant or machinery". On page 45, under Built Up Areas it states that "All built up areas count as dense terrain to all except troops on foot". On page 47, the Terrain Movement Summary has no listing for BUAs, so I assume I treat them as High Area Terrain? (although, confusingly, on that table High Area Terrain is not listed as Dense for wheeled or tracked vehicles - which seems to contradict the text on page 45, if BUAs are indeed treated as High Area Terrain on that table on page 47.) 
The whole thing is quite confusing I'm finding.

11. On page 48, in the last paragraph under the big heading Firing, the text doesn't make sense.  It reads, "Some units are only partly stabilised and are designated by S in the Notes section. Fully stabilised units are designed by S."   There seems to be no difference!  And should "designed" actually read "designated"?

12. On page 49, under Resolving Fire, presumably in the second dot point what is meant is "in this activation" rather than "in this turn", as I might be able to activate again and fire at the same target again.

13. On page 48 (referred to on page 49) the illustration of front, flank and rear arcs has no arcs drawn on it.  Is it the case that we are meant to just use the faces of the model?

14. There appears to be a contradiction between the chart on page 24 (which says in the End Phase to remove suppression markers on all of the Active Player's units) and the text on page 50 (which says "Troops recover automatically from suppression at the end of their opponent's next turn").   Which is it?

15. On page 51, under Fall Back, I am going to play a House Rule that a unit must Fall Back in a direction directly away from the closest firing enemy unit (rather than "the majority of firing enemy units", which seems a bit vague), or directly towards his baseline in the case of a Fall Back caused by indirect fire.

16. There seems to be a slightly different approach on Howitzers between the note under the chart on page 49 and the text on page 51 under the heading Howitzers.  Is it the intention that howitzers cannot fire at soft targets located at less than half range?

Many thanks for this. We'll put up a 'pinned' Errata thread and ensure this is added to it.
As is my approach with CWCII and BKCIV errata, it is deliberately not my intention to reply to each point individually, as to do so takes up as much time as correcting the actual errata itself.
We'll produce an Errata PDF once we have enough to justify that.

However, with regard to a couple of specific points you raise.
Obviously you are very welcome to adopt your own House Rules for things within the rules - that's your prerogative.
What might be helpful however, might be the rationale behind why a particular approach has been adopted to things. For example, with regard to your point 15. above.

This is deliberately designed this way to avoid 'gamey' play and abuse issues.
For example: an enemy Massive unit is shot at by an infantry unit (that inflicts 1 suppression on it). This infantry unit is the nearest/closest firing unit, but it is positioned to the rear of the enemy Massive. In the same shooting action, the same enemy Massive unit is also targeted by 2 x long-range anti-armour units, to its front, they are shooting at it just outside half-range. These 2 anti-armour units inflict enough hits and suppressions to cause the Massive unit to fall back.

In your proposal, the Massive unit will fall back away from the Infantry unit (as it is the closest firing enemy unit – even though it only inflicted a suppression). Under your 'House Rule' the suppressed Massive unit will therefore be forced to fall-back (forwards) towards the 2 anti-armour units and may well end up moving into under half-range away from them both (giving them an additional shooting advantage). Which seems to me to be an unrealistic action, as the 'most threatening' enemy units are the 2 anti-armour units, not the solitary infantry unit.
Under the current FWCII wording, the Massive unit falls back away from the 2 anti-armour units, towards the enemy infantry unit behind it (which it might trample). Which is a much more realistic scenario (IMHO).

With regard to your observation regarding movement in Dense Terrain specifically (item 10). This is covered in the section above in relation to Area Terrain. Units entering Dense Terrain must stop upon entry and stop before they exit. This represents various issues within Dense Terrain - such as visibility, movement etc.
Similarly, your point (9.) about ... Walls ... is a case where one mechanism overriding another. e.g. tracked or wheeled vehicles treat ... walls ... as if they are Open terrain e.g. they drive straight through them! However ... if the ...wall.. is enclosing a piece of area terrain, the wheeled or tracked unit will go through the ... wall ... but stop on the other side, as it has entered the piece of Area Terrain. There are other cases, specifically with regard to Special Abilities, where an ability overrides a general rule.

Dense Terrain is extremely problematic, as it effects visibility, movement, shooting, command etc. but can also be so very varied.
For example: a dense cloud of gas or liquid (in the atmosphere of a gas giant, for example) is 'dense' enough to block visibility significantly, but would probably offer little or no protection against enemy weapon fire and might not impede movement. However, if the same cloud was filled with ice crystals or atmospheric dust or corrosive acid it represents a very different set of challenges. The use of the Area Terrain concept is a 'clever' way to helps to try and overcome the need for a fully comprehensive (almost endless) set of terrain tables, covering movement, shooting, visibility, command radius, for all types of units and all possible types of terrain.

Hopefully that is all helpful.
Cheers
Mark

Thanks Mark for your thoughts.

I prefer to try the closest enemy unit as the point from which to Fall Back away from over the RAW "majority of enemy units" because to me the latter seems less certain.  For example, in your example, what if there was only one antitank unit? - suddenly what seems a very clear cut situation becomes cloudier, at least to me. So, my House Rule is really an attempt to get a quick and certain outcome.

I'm still a bit confused by some elements of area terrain, dense terrain and linear obstacles.  I fully understand the original concept from FWC1 that you have to stop on contacting area terrain, and again when leaving it. It is an "obstacle".
But, as I noted, on page 45 of FWC2 it now says, "All built-up areas count as dense terrain to all except troops on foot".
Is this the case?  (because in the chart on page 47 it is quite clear that High Area Terrain (of which BUA is a sub-type) is not marked as Dense terrain for a number of unit types that are not troops on foot (such as wheeled vehicles). Should they actually be marked with a "D"?

With respect to Walls. Your interpretation in this thread seems a sudden change from the FWC1 rules.  In those rules it was clear that Walls were a sub-type of Linear Terrain: "Troops on foot, wheeled vehicles and tracked vehicles stop when contacting linear terrain and may cross, then move full distance, on the next successful order. The movement of wheeled or tracked vehicles across linear terrain creates a 5cm wide breach through which all troops can then pass without penalty."
Yet in FWC2 at page 41 we are told that tracked vehicles treat Walls as Open Terrain (so, they do not treat them as Linear Terrain, which is a different heading). According to the rule for Open Terrain, "There are no restrictions for any troops moving across open terrain".
So, my question is, which rule applies in FWC2, the rule on page 41 of FWC2 that says treat a Wall as Open Terrain for tracked vehicles, or the rule on page 44 of FWC2 (and page 20 of FWC1) which says treat a Wall as Linear Terrain including for tracked vehicles? 

Replies below in bold.

QuoteThanks Mark for your thoughts.

I prefer to try the closest enemy unit as the point from which to Fall Back away from over the RAW "majority of enemy units" because to me the latter seems less certain.  For example, in your example, what if there was only one antitank unit? - suddenly what seems a very clear cut situation becomes cloudier, at least to me. So, my House Rule is really an attempt to get a quick and certain outcome.

> OK, that is your choice, of course, but the FWCII rules have been play-tested and the overall and unanimous agreement (amongst the playtesters) was that falling-back from the "majority of enemy units" was deemed to be the most appropriate and realistic outcome. In the situation you've outline with just 1 anti-armour units and 1 infantry unit, if I was umpiring I'd rule that the Massive unit falls back from the unit that caused it to take the hits, rather than the suppressions. But we are dancing on pin-heads here. As I say, that's your choice, but I disagree with it, as it is open to abuse.

But, as I noted, on page 45 of FWC2 it now says, "All built-up areas count as dense terrain to all except troops on foot".
Is this the case?  (because in the chart on page 47 it is quite clear that High Area Terrain (of which BUA is a sub-type) is not marked as Dense terrain for a number of unit types that are not troops on foot (such as wheeled vehicles). Should they actually be marked with a "D"?

> Again, we come down to the fact that whilst some 'High Area Terrain' are BUAs, some are also not BUAs. So "D" for all High Area Terrain  (such as wheeled and tracked vehicles) would not be appropriate. Ultimately what you are asking for is a specific set of expanded terrain tables that cover all the various configurations of movement types and all the different possible configurations of possible terrain types. For now that wont be happening, as I have other far more pressing projects (such as the army lists) to focus on. Also, for most players, I suspect they'll probably adopt a pragmatic approach. 

With respect to Walls. Your interpretation in this thread seems a sudden change from the FWC1 rules.  In those rules it was clear that Walls were a sub-type of Linear Terrain: "Troops on foot, wheeled vehicles and tracked vehicles stop when contacting linear terrain and may cross, then move full distance, on the next successful order. The movement of wheeled or tracked vehicles across linear terrain creates a 5cm wide breach through which all troops can then pass without penalty."
Yet in FWC2 at page 41 we are told that tracked vehicles treat Walls as Open Terrain (so, they do not treat them as Linear Terrain, which is a different heading). According to the rule for Open Terrain, "There are no restrictions for any troops moving across open terrain".
So, my question is, which rule applies in FWC2, the rule on page 41 of FWC2 that says treat a Wall as Open Terrain for tracked vehicles, or the rule on page 44 of FWC2 (and page 20 of FWC1) which says treat a Wall as Linear Terrain including for tracked vehicles? 

> Hmmm .... I am not interpreting anything. The FWCII rules are clear. Wheeled and Tracked vehicles now treat 'Walls' as Open Terrain, so they can move through them without penalty. There is no contradiction here, just a specific exemption (as occurs in other instances throughout the rules). Other linear terrain (such as ditches, for example) still causes these vehicles to stop.
Again, this is a very deliberate change in FWCII to improve game-play.

Thanks
Mark

Re Walls - but Mark your own rulebook says quite clearly on page 41 that a Tracked Vehicle must stop on contact with a wall.  It can then proceed the next turn.  You have just written the exact opposite in your post timed 10:10.45PM.  Which is it?

P41 - for Tracked units it should read "When crossing Razor wire the unit will stop". For Wheeled units delete Walls within the first sentence.

Both Wheeled and Tracked vehicles can cross Walls as if they are Open terrain. And that applies to all such references throughout the rules.

These will be picked up as errata in the future.

On the subject of EW..

The modifier for Contemporary Tech-Level EW in the example on page 26 (no adjustment) does not match the list on page 25, +1

Can you confirm what the correct mod should be?

Hi there - I'm not currently in front of my rules set - so will review your question in detail in a day or so, once I am back at my desk.
However - as a general rule - the written text will always override tables or (especially) examples.

There appears to be some confusion with the Electronic Warfare rules mechanism. I'll take a deeper look at it and produce a line-by-line example.

Thanks
Mark

Hi there - I've managed to check a draft version (via my phone) and yes - the example is worded incorrectly.
The process should read as follows:

i) Octarii with an Advanced Tech-level vs Theological with a Contemporary Tech-level.

1) The Octarii rolls 2d:6 and scores 6 in total
  The Theological Humans rolls 2d:6 and scores 2 in total
2) So the difference is 4 and that is applied to the lowest scoring player (and regardless of whether they are the phasing player or not, they are classified as the 'defender' for the Electronic Warfare process), and that is the Theological army.
3) So the Theological player has a base score of +4.

b. Add +1 if the defending player is Contemporary* (as they will have tech that can be effected - although not as much as an Advanced tech army) which takes the defending players score up to +5.
NB: *This is the incorrect bit.

d. The Octarii has 1 unsuppressed EW unit whilst the Theological has 2 - so the difference is -1 to the Theological  (as it is the defender and has more unsuppressed EW units than the Octarii).
NB: This is action d. in the process and it needs to be worded more specifically & clearly.

This now leaves the Theological player with a score of +4 (as the 1 additional EW unit acts in its favor deducts -1 from its running total).

e. as both players have EW units this doesn't apply

f. Now deduct the command values of each CO (Octarii CV10 and Theological CV8) = giving a +2 advantage to Octarii - which adds +2 to the defenders (Theological) score - taking the total to +6
NB: again we can clarify that.

You now apply the outcome (which is +6) from the Outcome chart at the top of Page.26 to the player that is the defender in the EW chart. That might well not be the phasing player. Remember action 5-8 occurs in the effected player next phasing turn (not necessarily the current one).

I'll sort out a proper errata sheet and will run a couple of other examples in it as well.

Thanks
Mark

That is confusing

Would it not be a lot simpler for each player to work out their own score and then compare?

(2d6 + CV + EW units) for each player -  then apply b and e?

Quote from: fred. on 02 March 2026, 08:24:56 AMThat is confusing

Would it not be a lot simpler for each player to work out their own score and then compare?

(2d6 + CV + EW units) for each player -  then apply b and e?

  Perfectly possible fred. I'll check that out and see. If its simpler and easier then that makes a huge amount of sense.
Cheers
Mark