Slitherine

I will be making some stakes for my English archers. Is there any suggested depth in the rules? I am not looking for any cheesy advantage in the game. I would just like to know if a particular base depth is going to be recommended and conform to that.

No suggested depth as far as I know. Since you move the troops back to accommodate the placing of the stakes (and move them forward once the stakes are gone), there's no advantage to be gained by making them extra thick or extra thin. Just keep it within reason, I think!

Mine are on 10mm deep bases that I was going to use to be economical with figures for biblical horde (I was going to have two figures on a 40 by 10 base and pair them with three on a 40 by 20).

Paul and I had a short discussion on declaring stakes when troops are deployed. It would be nice to get this one sorted out before there is a problem. Will it be the practice to state that ones troops are carrying stakes when the troops are deployed? For me it seems obvious that if a man can be seen carrying a bow then he would have difficulty concealing a large stake.

It would be nice to have this decided and publicised before we get the first competition argument when someone decides not to declare stakes until the knights are lining up to charge.

rogerg wrote:Paul and I had a short discussion on declaring stakes when troops are deployed. It would be nice to get this one sorted out before there is a problem. Will it be the practice to state that ones troops are carrying stakes when the troops are deployed? For me it seems obvious that if a man can be seen carrying a bow then he would have difficulty concealing a large stake.

It would be nice to have this decided and publicised before we get the first competition argument when someone decides not to declare stakes until the knights are lining up to charge.

Well I would think you have to declare if they are deployed. After allyou must take a CMT to place them. So once placed they must be announced. But you mean decalre at deployment that the BG has stakes that it could emplace.

rogerg wrote:Paul and I had a short discussion on declaring stakes when troops are deployed. It would be nice to get this one sorted out before there is a problem. Will it be the practice to state that ones troops are carrying stakes when the troops are deployed? For me it seems obvious that if a man can be seen carrying a bow then he would have difficulty concealing a large stake.

It would be nice to have this decided and publicised before we get the first competition argument when someone decides not to declare stakes until the knights are lining up to charge.

The rules do specify that troops have to be defined on request. Best ask you opponent whether his longbowmen are carrying stakes when they are deployed. If you forget to ask, it is not all that unreasonable if you get a nasty surprise.

However, as the rules stand, I think that it would be reasonable to expect it to be declared by your opponent at deployment.

I use ( better say ,try to use ) stakes for my longbowmen on a base of 10mm with stakes from the Essex Range it fits good on table and easy to make , I announce at the deployement phase the historical date of my ONE HYW English continental Army "winter 1429AD to 1430AD " due to the winter basing of snow on the elements and I declare the stakes use ( I don't want to have any problem with the Customs );

best regards from behind the stakes

thefrenchjester " Vegan ? perhaps one day "

I'm guessing this question was posed after a previous bitter experience?

I'd be really disappointed if my opponent tried to conceal something like this - rather than having to ask I think it should be declared.

I had some trepidation leaving the calm and gentle pond that is DBR for the potentially rougher waters of FOG, but with 2 competitions under my belt I have been most impressed with the quality and conduct of my opponents thus far!

Long may it continue!

Pete

My question was posed before any bitter experience. I hope not to have one and thus maintain the current happy state of affairs.