Ogniem i Mieczem - By Fire and Sword

Ok, now it's clear for me that you use 1st short-run print of BFaS English rules. I even had no chance to see it when I started to work with English rules (because of low number of copies it has been sold really quickly as I know)
The thing is, in Revised Edition there are no 'Shooting while charging' Special Rules for commanders mentioned above any more. And even if they would be - in my opinion - there's no possibility to use them since "Commanders may not initiate Charges by themselves." sentence has been placed into mentioned paragraph. So - correct me if I'm wrong - all this dispute is pointless now?

Well, maybe you're right. Although probably no one ever asked about it earlier. But see: at this moment it would only make a mess between old and new players (even between these old ones too!) I'm afraid. This edition has only aim of "update rules", not "rewrite them". So, I see no chance now. It might be a good question for 2nd Edition.

Since "A Unit with an attached Commander receives an additional die in Close Combat and Shooting (in each Combat Phase)" (GE, p. 91) means that a commander doesn't shoot himself - just adds a combat die to the Unit - so attached commander don't use his ammo limit.

1.&3. Daniel, pleaaaaaaase..... Gamer's Edition, page 12, basic terms: "Types of Units in the game"

--= To be continued =--

I know but it could be explicatively spelled out. Especially as in some scenarios during deployment it is stated "alternatively placing one Unit or Commander" but in others it just states "Alternate deploy Units" ....so in the latter case they are playing without Commanders?
I know that i marked such text but forgot to mention Commanders too Look at Scenarios 4 and 6.

I feel nitpicky

Thanks Witold for the responses.

Obviously no one of us expects that any comment will be implemented on the spot . We just assume you collect "issues to address at some point" somewhere, so we want to add them to the list

Thanks for being nitpicky Daniel, we had so many discussions on this, especially given the differences between the scenarios. in Patrol you can challenge with the commander, in others, you cannot...

That being said, I noticed that also due to the "farming points" scenario Patrol, quite a few tournaments switched to "points difference as win for the winner" instead of absolute points for both, e.g. 3:0 instead of 5:2. Is this something you will address in the pdf, too? At least as an alternative suggestion?

Is this question about that we expanded on page 150 of GE?

I remark that "!" markings are only in these changed parts of text which have a real influence on the game play. We resigned of putting such symbol by each change, because this rulebook would be non-readable.

Forgive me if I've come too late to the party and the rulebook has gone off to the printers.
Also there are many very good things mentioned above, so will there be a Beta + version of the PDF made available for review?

We (Wessex Wyvern's Bournemouth England) have only recently started playing this system as we were put off by the clunkiness of the original rulebook back in 2013.

In our recent practice games some of the things we're doing wrong is because some things are buried in the text in one place only and omitted from the all important quick reference sheet (QRS) or not repeated in other appropriate sections within the rulebook.

Some of these things we missed being......

Not taking morale tests when a unit loses a base from defenders fire or at the end of other stages because that rule is within the book and not on the QRS. The Morale Test situations list would be more helpful if it also appeared on the QRS and not just page 64. It could replace the table of Breaking Points. But then where something is for either Skirmish / Task Force or Divisional level games the different levels of the game may benefit from tailored QRS's - hopefully a single A4 side as a supplement to the Core Rules.

Could you add to the Morale Test situations list on page 64 and QRS, from page 98 "A unit hit with case-shot must pass a Morale test after losing 1 Strength Point".

Defenders Fire does not seem (to me) to get the column inches it deserves. The game turn summary for Defender's Fire Stage and the text on page 39 could both be expanded to encompass the same 3 points rather than each containing just 2.

Suggestion " All Units with the Defensive Order may fire in this stage. Commanders with unspent Command Points may use them to delay the shooting of units within their command range. At the end of this Stage losses are calculated and Morale tests are taken where appropriate i.e. After losing a base due to shooting.

It would also be helpful to add on the QRS after the text for 'The Shooting After Movement Stage' "At the end of this stage losses are calculated and Morale tests are taken should a unit loss a base from Shooting".

These are the sort of beginner errors which we are making - not because we are new to wargaming (I've been losing at the table-top for over 40 years) but new to this rule set.

Sorry that this is turning into a rather long post but Christmas has finally afforded me the time to read the PDF over 2 sittings.

Each of the Scenario's includes a paragraph which starts "If the battlefield is especially inconvenient for...." could this be said only once at Step G on page 115.

On page 140 Additional Effects - it would be helpful to repeat most of the text for Step F from page 115 starting at "After the number of fortification elements have been chosen, if the Force Strength Points are still not equal, the weaker player ......"

Finally, whilst reading the updated / commented PDF I found the over use of capitalisation to be very annoying (it grates) for common nouns. Occasionally for affect is OK and in German it is correct but this is an English version of the rulebook -- all be it with American spellings. Please keep the grammar English.

Page 76 Squadron

In this paragraph please remove the *to

The Units must be exactly of the same type – you
may combine two winged hussar banners but
you may not [*]to combine a hussar banner and a
pancerni banner.

So anyone has the Polish version and can give us some hindsight what has changed in comparison to the beta-pdf?