stakes again...

[zeitoun]

Hi all,

just 2 questions about stakes :

If i put stakes in front of My Longbows BG , Can I turn 90 whithout losing the stakes ? ( In my opinion , I lose them but ??? )

If I put only one stake because my BG is in colum, can i Put the 2 stakes remaining in a other turn ? (Put one , leave position and loose one stake , move, then Put 2 other stakes ???? )

Thanks

[petedalby]

Hi Oliver - we are in uncharted waters here - 2 questions that AFAIK have never been asked before.

FWIW - my view would be as follows:

If i put stakes in front of My Longbows BG , Can I turn 90 whithout losing the stakes ?

The penultimate bullet point on P121 - "If the battle group moves away without picking up its PD, the PD markers are removed" As the PD markers replace the front edge of the BG, and you have you moved the front edge of the BG away by turning 90 degrees, then I think the PDs are lost. But clearly others may take a different view.

If I put only one stake because my BG is in colum, can i Put the 2 stakes remaining in a other turn ?

As you've paid for 3 and only used 1, I think it would be reasonable to place the remaining 2 at some other point in the game. But again, others may well disagree.

Hope that helps.

All the best

[dave_r]

If I put only one stake because my BG is in colum, can i Put the 2 stakes remaining in a other turn ?

As you've paid for 3 and only used 1, I think it would be reasonable to place the remaining 2 at some other point in the game. But again, others may well disagree.

I would disagree with this - A BG places stakes as a BG, irrelevant of formation. I suspect this would lead to cheesy moves and such like which weren't intended - for example, a BG of 8 in a 4x4 formation could effectively deploy stakes twice using this method.

[zeitoun]

Hi Oliver - we are in uncharted waters here - 2 questions that AFAIK have never been asked before.

FWIW - my view would be as follows:

If I put only one stake because my BG is in colum, can i Put the 2 stakes remaining in a other turn ?

As you've paid for 3 and only used 1, I think it would be reasonable to place the remaining 2 at some other point in the game. But again, others may well disagree.
Hope that helps.
All the best

Hi pete,
the last bullet P121, " a battle group that has placed and not Picked Up its PD, cannot place more PD"
Perhaps, this can be the solution.

Happy new year...

[zoltan]

Page 121 "A battle group carrying PD can place them (or pick them up) in the manoeuvre phase as a full complex move. Enough are carried to cover the front of the battle group when it is 2 bases deep."

To me these two sentences say:
1. You place/pick up all the stakes (its a zero sum option).
2. If placed, the PD are set out so as to cover the BG's frontage when it is 2 deep, regardless of the actual formation of the BG.

[hazelbark]

Page 121 "A battle group carrying PD can place them (or pick them up) in the manoeuvre phase as a full complex move. Enough are carried to cover the front of the battle group when it is 2 bases deep."

To me these two sentences say:
1. You place/pick up all the stakes (its a zero sum option).
2. If placed, the PD are set out so as to cover the BG's frontage when it is 2 deep, regardless of the actual formation of the BG.

Just to be clear are you saying a column can't deploy its stakes because it has 3, or as I suspect deploying its stakes in that case will mean just 1 base and the other two are SOL.

[zoltan]

Page 121 "A battle group carrying PD can place them (or pick them up) in the manoeuvre phase as a full complex move. Enough are carried to cover the front of the battle group when it is 2 bases deep."

To me these two sentences say:
1. You place/pick up all the stakes (its a zero sum option).
2. If placed, the PD are set out so as to cover the BG's frontage when it is 2 deep, regardless of the actual formation of the BG.

Just to be clear are you saying a column can't deploy its stakes because it has 3, or as I suspect deploying its stakes in that case will mean just 1 base and the other two are SOL.

No, my view of the RAW is that when the PDs are deployed, they are all deployed line abreast (sufficient to cover the BGs frontage if it was in a 2 deep formation). The BG may, in fact, be deployed in a 1 base wide column behind them (for whatever reason). So, a BG of 6 bases would have 3 PDs. If it decides to deploy stakes it puts out all 3 in a line. Under RAW the BG appears to be entitled to stay in column behind this line of stakes.

However, a column of longbowmen behind a line of stakes sounds cheesy to me. Also, allowing a 1 base wide column to only deploy 1 set of stakes just to cover that frontage does not look like a line of longbowman in a defensive firing position, to me. Stakes are a defensive tactic; columns are an offensive formation.

So I'm all for only allowing PDs to be deployed when the BG is in a 2 deep formation. i.e. shooters maximising their shooting while behind a defensive obstacle.

Maybe for FoG v2, the authors might care to say that a BG must be in a 2 deep formation in order to deploy/pick up all of their PDs?

[hazelbark]

Ah now I see what you are saying. A BG can only deploy PDs when in a two deep formation. Interesting. Not sure I agree, but not sure I am worked up by it either. I'll have to read the rules.

[dave_r]

I can't see that I think it is worth it - since deploying or undeploying stakes is a full move, then it isn't cheesy to deploy when not in a 2 deep formation. Since you can't pick them up if there are enemy within 6" then even less so.

[zoltan]

Ah now I see what you are saying. A BG can only deploy PDs when in a two deep formation. Interesting. Not sure I agree, but not sure I am worked up by it either. I'll have to read the rules.

No. I'm saying that to me RAW:
- appear to be agnostic about what formation the BG must be in to deploy stakes
- suggest that its all or nothing for deploying stakes; either you deploy them all or you don't deploy any. You can't deploy "just enough" to cover whatever formation the BG happens to be in
- if you do deploy stakes, you deploy them all and they are put down in a line sufficiently long to cover the BG "as if" it was in a 2 deep formation (regardless of what formation the BG is actually in).


I don't like the idea of a column of longbowmen deploying just one base width of stakes. It does not look or feel like Agincourt to me. I think v2 of the rules/FAQs should explicitly state that stakes may only be placed by longbowmen when they are in a 2 deep formation. Stakes were a defensive tactic used when maximising shooting, not to cower behind in a girlie column (which is a manoeuvre formation).

[dave_r]

Ah now I see what you are saying. A BG can only deploy PDs when in a two deep formation. Interesting. Not sure I agree, but not sure I am worked up by it either. I'll have to read the rules.

No. I'm saying that to me RAW:
- appear to be agnostic about what formation the BG must be in to deploy stakes
- suggest that its all or nothing for deploying stakes; either you deploy them all or you don't deploy any. You can't deploy "just enough" to cover whatever formation the BG happens to be in
- if you do deploy stakes, you deploy them all and they are put down in a line sufficiently long to cover the BG "as if" it was in a 2 deep formation (regardless of what formation the BG is actually in).


I don't the idea of a column of longbowmen deploying just one base width of stakes. It does not look or feel like Agincourt to me. I think v2 of the rules/FAQs should explicitly state that stakes may only be placed by longbowmen when they are in a 2 deep formation. Stakes were a defensive tactic used when maximising shooting, not to cower behind in a girlie column (which is a manoeuvre formation).

There is a major problem in deploying stakes when in a column - namely that your enemy then wanders behind them and then charges you in the flank. You have options to pick the stakes up, turn and then re-deploy stakes, but that takes three turns or you can ditch the stakes and turn to face the attack in the open.

You only deploy stakes to cover your frontage - not half of your bases.

[ShrubMiK]

Agreed.

I'd be more concerned using columns of longbowmen as a device for deploying a line of stakes in front of the billmen which by oh such happy accident are placed either side. I don't think that is intended!

Zoltan, I hear what you are saying, but I think if the player wants his longbowmen to cower in a column behind stakes, without the benefit of massed shooting, and voluntarily losing elements of stakes that have been paid for, that's the players own lookout. I don't see many situations in which that would give an advantage.

Surely the idea of an "attack column" is a historical in the first place? So the argument that you should be discouraged from putting stakes down in such a situation seems moot - if you were really worried about it you should perhaps legislate against the BG being in column in the frontline. And I certainly wouldn't want to go that far!

[zeitoun]

I put my LG in colum just to keep them as far as possible of a almughavars BG . SO When the Knigths come's I cannot deployed and pick my PD. SO I choose to Pick .....

SO can I put only One PD if in colum? Or must i put ALL my PD in a turn? If I put all, when I'm in colum , did they stay if I deployed after???

[dave_r]

I don't know where everybody is getting the idea that if you are in column you could deploy three sets of stakes if you pop them down - the rules state:

"Stands depicting appropriate PD are placed on the table in the position of the front of the battle group. The battle group is shifted back to make room. The front edge of the PD is treated as the front edge fo the battle group, including for measuring ranges"

From this, clearly when you deploy stakes you only deploy enough to cover the front of the BG.

[zoltan]

I don't know where everybody is getting the idea that if you are in column you could deploy three sets of stakes if you pop them down - the rules state:

"Stands depicting appropriate PD are placed on the table in the position of the front of the battle group. The battle group is shifted back to make room. The front edge of the PD is treated as the front edge fo the battle group, including for measuring ranges"

From this, clearly when you deploy stakes you only deploy enough to cover the front of the BG.

From me - I offered it as my interpretation of page 121 which is silent on the specific mechanics for placing PD. It does not have any instructions such as, "the player must deploy one PD per base width of the BG's formation". i.e. in a column you would deploy one PD; in a block 2 wide and 3 deep you would deploy 2 PD; in a line 3 wide and 2 deep you would deploy 3 PD etc.

No Dave, you're wrong. ':D' It is not "clear" from this. I see nothing preventing me (if I so chose) deploying all my stakes at once in a line while keeping my BG in column behind them.

[spikemesq]

I don't know where everybody is getting the idea that if you are in column you could deploy three sets of stakes if you pop them down - the rules state:

"Stands depicting appropriate PD are placed on the table in the position of the front of the battle group. The battle group is shifted back to make room. The front edge of the PD is treated as the front edge fo the battle group, including for measuring ranges"

From this, clearly when you deploy stakes you only deploy enough to cover the front of the BG.

What you quote says nothing about how many PD are deployed. It refers to "stands" and a "battle group." The other limit on PD is how many you purchase (i.e., 0-1/2 bases in the BG).

Even if the column of 6 LB were permitted to deploy all 3 PD stands, the joke seems to be on them. The other quoted rule says that PDs are lost if the BG moves. Expansion from column = move, so the LB cannot line up behind their 3 PDs to begin with.

Of course, who gives a hang about PDs?

[dave_r]

I don't know where everybody is getting the idea that if you are in column you could deploy three sets of stakes if you pop them down - the rules state:

"Stands depicting appropriate PD are placed on the table in the position of the front of the battle group. The battle group is shifted back to make room. The front edge of the PD is treated as the front edge fo the battle group, including for measuring ranges"

From this, clearly when you deploy stakes you only deploy enough to cover the front of the BG.

What you quote says nothing about how many PD are deployed. It refers to "stands" and a "battle group."

Yes it does - it clearly states you put down PD in the position to the front of the Battle group - this means you put enough PDs down to cover the frontage of the Battle Group?

The other limit on PD is how many you purchase (i.e., 0-1/2 bases in the BG).

Nope - this is fixed, you have to buy one PD per two bases.

[spikemesq]

But the quote just says to put the PDs down in the position in front of the BG. Three PDs across the front of a BG in column arguably meet this description. It is sort of like the "behind field fortifications" deployment issue that pops up from time to time.

Of course, I don't really care about PD deployment, so do what you want to do. Spreading them across a column is dumb because you lock the column in place and cannot use them anyway.

[dave_r]

But the quote just says to put the PDs down in the position in front of the BG. Three PDs across the front of a BG in column arguably meet this description. It is sort of like the "behind field fortifications" deployment issue that pops up from time to time.

No it doesn't meet this description - if you are a one element wide column and you place three PD's then two of them by definition aren't to the BG's front!

Of course, I don't really care about PD deployment, so do what you want to do. Spreading them across a column is dumb because you lock the column in place and cannot use them anyway.

It's not normally a good idea, but it does depend on the circumstances. Not all troops who carry PD's are Longbowmen.

[petedalby]

As predicted - lots of different views on this post. Let's go back to the original questions posed:

If i put stakes in front of My Longbows BG , Can I turn 90 whithout losing the stakes ?

No disagreement on this point - the front of the BG has moved away from the PD - the PD are lost.

If I put only one stake because my BG is in colum, can i Put the 2 stakes remaining in a other turn ? (Put one , leave position and loose one stake , move, then Put 2 other stakes ???? )

Lots of different views here and some valid concerns raised.

IMO there should be no issue with a column placing just one PD. To suggest the BG places them all potentially opens up a can of worms. So if the forthcoming IWF is your concern, keep it simple - allow a column to place 1 PD. There is no benefit / cheese here.

If the BG moves away - can it place it's other PDs? On reflection I think this is covered by the final bullet point on P121. "A battle group that has placed and not picked up its PD cannot place more PD." That's pretty clear.

The chances of this arising and having a material impact on a game are slim but the bottom line is that the umpire has to make a call if the players disagree - but hopefully that won't happen.