WGF card errata list

Over the years I have read various threads concerning errors in some officially released WGF and WGS maneuver and plane cards. Does a list exist for all the different errors or changes in updated reprints?

Some examples would be missing or additional maneuvers in the officially released deck of maneuver cards for a particular plane, changes in maneuver decks from original releases and their reprints (WGF Fokker E.III from P to T deck), or generally agreed upon alterations to maneuver decks for particular planes (such as WGS Zero).....

If a list does not exist, would anyone care to mention their examples so I may make a list for my personal use.

Ditto!

I'm not aware of such a list. Here's a few I know off the top of my head:
Nexus Snipe M deck - wide side slips are steep, in the Ares reprint Snipe M deck they are not.
Nexus N.16 R deck - has no wide side slips, in the Ares reprint it does. (additional to the WoW deck)
Nexus Sopwith Triplane (card only) used D deck - Ares changed it to the new U deck when model released
Nexus Fokker Eindecker (card only) used P deck - Ares changed it to the new T deck when model released
Nexus DH.2 (card only) used G deck - Ares changed it to the P deck when model released
Nexus Halberstadt D.III (card only) used G deck - Ares changed it to the P deck when model released
Nexus Morane Saulnier N (card only) used P deck - Ares changed it to the new T deck when model released
Sideslips longer than straights in all E,G,P,R,T,Y decks.
There are some discrepancies in length of straights between some WoW & WoG decks, though I don't recall which ones.
Some B decks in the WoW booster sets had dive cards that were too short, ie for the next speed band down.

Thank you, Dave. That is precisely the information for which I am looking. I can look these up now, and find out which is the recommended variation of each. If you remember more, please, post them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abovetheclouds

Thank you, Dave. That is precisely the information for which I am looking. I can look these up now, and find out which is the recommended variation of each. If you remember more, please, post them.

---

Ha! I just chased down a number of threads on the first item on this list (Snipe M deck), and all of those threads died without a definitive answer from Andrea or someone on the Unofficial Rules Committee.

Not surprised. Most broad side slips are steeps apart from the P deck and now the new M & R decks.

Nieuport 16 R deck thread research also turned up no answers to the discrepancies between early card decks and newer card decks. Well, Dave, I thought all I was going to have to do was chase down some old threads to discover the answers to some of the discrepancies. Unfortunately, I am only finding dead and abandoned threads with no responses from either game designer, Andrea, or from any Unofficial Committee members.

Such questions are outside the Official Unofficial Stats Committee's (OUSC) remit.

Unofficially though... apart from the goof regarding the Immelman booster deck (DH2, Morane, Fokker E.III, Halberstadt D.II) , and the deliberately erroneous Triplane D deck (for financial reasons), the errors are so small in my opinion they fade into insignificance.

You can justify it, if you really need to, by the knowledge that in reality, and in an excruciatingly accurate simulation game, there would be random effects due to differences in rigging that day, how old the engine was, etc.

In my experience, whether I am using an Ares M deck or a Nexus M deck on a Snipe makes no difference, and certainly no significant difference. While I can imagine a situation where it would be important, I really doubt such situations would occur in more than one game in a few hundred.

Why do I feel this way? Consider the limitations in the remit of the OUSC. We had to use existing decks, not make new ones. That meant compromise, and having to ignore minor differences while retaining the important ones as much as possible. A few times we had to grit our teeth, knowing none of the existing decks were really adequate, we had to go with the least worst. With the rejig of the G,P decks and release of T,U,V,W decks, most of our pain was relieved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abovetheclouds

Nieuport 16 R deck thread research also turned up no answers to the discrepancies between early card decks and newer card decks. Well, Dave, I thought all I was going to have to do was chase down some old threads to discover the answers to some of the discrepancies. Unfortunately, I am only finding dead and abandoned threads with no responses from either game designer, Andrea, or from any Unofficial Committee members.

---

Looks like Zoe beat me to it, Paul, it's nothing to do with the committee, and if we'd had definitive answers from the powers that be I'd have stuck them in the FAQ already. One day may be..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zoe Brain

You can justify it, if you really need to, by the knowledge that in reality, and in an excruciatingly accurate simulation game, there would be random effects due to differences in rigging that day, how old the engine was, etc.

In my experience, whether I am using an Ares M deck or a Nexus M deck on a Snipe makes no difference, and certainly no significant difference. While I can imagine a situation where it would be important, I really doubt such situations would occur in more than one game in a few hundred.

---

This. So much this.

Or one aircraft caught a particularly favorable gust of wind, or the mechanics did a particularly bad or good job on the engine tuning the night before, or the weight distribution of the aircraft was a little off that day, or a thousand other factors that a game simply can't account for. Yeah, it might matter, sometimes. But in how many games are aircraft with differing decks actually used? And what are the chances that the estimation (sometimes, actually, just an outright guess) of an aircrafts performance is accurately reflected in the choice of maneuver deck?

In the end, it is probably useful to compile a list of the differences in decks, just as a reference. If nothing else, it allows a gamemaster a wider selection of choices in setting up a scenario: all to the good, IMHO.

Thanks for the list, now make it official.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zoe Brain

Such questions are outside the Official Unofficial Stats Committee's (OUSC) remit.

Unofficially though... apart from the goof regarding the Immelman booster deck (DH2, Morane, Fokker E.III, Halberstadt D.II) , and the deliberately erroneous Triplane D deck (for financial reasons), the errors are so small in my opinion they fade into insignificance.

You can justify it, if you really need to, by the knowledge that in reality, and in an excruciatingly accurate simulation game, there would be random effects due to differences in rigging that day, how old the engine was, etc.

In my experience, whether I am using an Ares M deck or a Nexus M deck on a Snipe makes no difference, and certainly no significant difference. While I can imagine a situation where it would be important, I really doubt such situations would occur in more than one game in a few hundred.

Why do I feel this way? Consider the limitations in the remit of the OUSC. We had to use existing decks, not make new ones. That meant compromise, and having to ignore minor differences while retaining the important ones as much as possible. A few times we had to grit our teeth, knowing none of the existing decks were really adequate, we had to go with the least worst. With the rejig of the G,P decks and release of T,U,V,W decks, most of our pain was relieved.

---

Zoe and Dave, I want to thank you very much from all of us who notice these differences, and aren't savvy enough to recognize the degree of significance between the changes. That is why it is so comforting to have answers and opinions from the knowledgeable experts.

I will make my list, and note your responses. Your responses will be helpful for other current and future Aerodrome members who notice and question the differences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flash

Here's a few I know off the top of my head ...

---

Apparently a well working head Dave :pint: :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abovetheclouds

..I will make my list, and note your responses...

---

Thanks Paul. I'm sure the threads may have useful suggestions in how to deal with the first two queries, I have added further comments to the rest that may be of help.
Nexus Snipe M deck - wide side slips are steep, in the Ares reprint Snipe M deck they are not. There has been no explanation
Nexus N.16 R deck - has no wide side slips, in the Ares reprint it does. (additional to the WoW deck) There has been no explanation
Changes between WoW to Wog decks - More representative decks were created
Sideslips longer than straights in all E,G,P,R,T,Y decks - A known WoW error/foible that was not corrected by Ares.
There are some discrepancies in length of straights between some WoW & WoG decks, though I don't recall which ones. Minimal difference.
Some B decks in the WoW booster sets had dive cards that were too short, ie for the next speed band down. A known error.

Very helpful thread, thanks :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zoe Brain

Unofficially though... apart from the goof regarding the Immelman booster deck (DH2, Morane, Fokker E.III, Halberstadt D.II)...

---

Does this refer to the wide sideslips not being steep?

Where there is no explanation, it means an embarrassing error in proofreading in the new edition. It is a long story.

Or to put it another way... "We do not discuss it with outsiders"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xka6IYCpj4E

On a purely operational note;

The Halberstadt D.III 'A' damage card from the "Immelmann" booster carries the wrong unit; one such was indeed flown by Fritz Otto Bernert, but in Jasta 4, not Jasta "Boelcke"

The 'Watch Your Back' card for the captured Nieuport 11 flown at Jasta 1 by Gustav Leffers is incorrect: it was Nieuport 16, not an 11, so the card should carry the 'R' deck, not the 'E' deck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying Helmut

On a purely operational note;

The Halberstadt D.III 'A' damage card from the "Immelmann" booster carries the wrong unit; one such was indeed flown by Fritz Otto Bernert, but in Jasta 4, not Jasta "Boelcke".

---

I found this too too in the research I did, so in the recent OTT scenario, said the Halberstadt was on loan from Jasta 4

I'm painting a pale blue Nieuport 11 to match the card:- I have had to paint a Nieuport 16 instead, and I will modify the card when I get a chance!

Thanks Tim for the additional notes, and thanks Zoe for the laugh! Both are appreciated.

Paul - I stumbled across this old thread today that you may find interesting re errors -
https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sh...WoW-miniatures

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flash

Paul - I stumbled across this old thread today that you may find interesting re errors -
https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sh...WoW-miniatures

---

Thanks, Dave. I am one of those gamers without the seriously in-depth historical knowledge that so many members of the Aerodrome possess. I couldn't begin to nit pick the official WGF/WGS model releases on their historical inaccuracies. They work fine for me. But, I value deeply the input I receive from our experts when it comes to game play. I appreciate the amount of time and effort they put into their research. I am always grateful for their efforts, and their inputs that help to bring clarity to this great game.

Attachment 304229

Go with primary sources. And be careful of orthochrome colour translation.

Attachment 304230