Slitherine

Posted: **Wed Apr 02, 2008 11:53 am**

This cropped up on a Yahoo mailing list and I thought it would be worth posting it here.

">" bits are the original questions and the rest are my attempts to answer.

> Is ther any restriction on deploying stakes in rough
> or difficult terrain?
>

Not that I am aware of. Can't think why you'd want to do it though as the troops you'd want to use stakes against are affected by this terrain and longbowmen aren't.

> Can a unit already in Melee deploy stakes (I assume
> not)? What about those files of a BG that are not
> fighting in contact or an overlap?
>

I think not in both cases - although I can't offhand see anything specific about it. BGs cannot be moved in the Manoeuvre phase (when stakes are placed) and placing stakes counts as a full (complex) move so I think it at least implies that you cannot - and it is also common sense.

> Can a BG fighting strictly as an overlap place stakes?
>

As they can make a move in the manoeuvre phase they could place stakes.

> If a unit that has already deployed stakes expands, do
> the new columns count as having stakes (i.e. 6 stand
> Long Bow unit 2 wide expands out to 3 wide), or does
> the unit have to make another CMT, or is it allowed at
> all?
>

Interesting. BGs carry enough stakes to cover their frontage when 2 deep, however, when placed page 121 states they are placed in front of the BG and so if you are 2 bases wide I think you only place 2. If you then expand I would also say that you could make another CMT to place the remaining stakes.

> If a BG contracts (say from 3 wide to 2), does it lose
> the stakes from the contracted file? What about if it
> feeds a file from one side of the BG to the other to
> expand into a melee?

Page 121 says that you lose stakes when the BG moves away from them without picking them up first. So until the BG moves away, as opposed to individual files, I think they remain in place.

>
> All in all had a great battle. Longbowmen with stakes
> are a realy fun troop type, but are gawd awful
> expensive!
>

21 points per file, IIRC, isn't that expensive - compare to knights, pikes, cavalry and many others

Posted: **Wed Apr 02, 2008 5:28 pm**

Looks good to me on all counts Nik.

I had a game where I had 6 longbowmen 2 wide and 3 deep and would come under threat to front from cavalry and flank from elephants.

It occurred to me later that I could have deployed 2 bases of stakes to my front and then, in the following bound, turn 90 degrees.

'Troops defending FF cannot be charged in flank/rear across the fortifications....'

What do you reckon?

Pete

Posted: **Wed Apr 02, 2008 5:39 pm**

Well apart from the fact that stakes are Portable Defenses (PD) not Field Fortifiactions (FF) and PD only count as FF when the defenders are in close combat with mounted ...

Nice try

Posted: **Wed Apr 02, 2008 5:43 pm**

But the defenders would be in close combat with mounted when they are charged?

Pete

Posted: **Wed Apr 02, 2008 6:07 pm**

While we are on the subject of stakes...

Several army lists have stakes as an all/none option for longbowmen right under say a line for Retinue Longbowmen.

Later in the army list there might be a line for Welsh Longbowmen.

does the all/none on stakes apply to these troops as well?

Does it apply to all troops armed with longbows?

All troops with the world "longbowmen" in their name?

Just the troops immediately before the line allowing the stakes option?

Something else?

Posted: **Wed Apr 02, 2008 6:55 pm**

The 100 yrs war English Army list shows stakes for 3pts. Is that 3 pts. per BG? Presumably so.

Thanks,
John

Posted: **Wed Apr 02, 2008 7:04 pm**

recharge wrote:The 100 yrs war English Army list shows stakes for 3pts. Is that 3 pts. per BG? Presumably so.

Thanks,
John

No it is 3 points per 2 bases in the BG.

Posted: **Wed Apr 02, 2008 7:06 pm**

ethan wrote:While we are on the subject of stakes...

Several army lists have stakes as an all/none option for longbowmen right under say a line for Retinue Longbowmen.

Later in the army list there might be a line for Welsh Longbowmen.

does the all/none on stakes apply to these troops as well?

Does it apply to all troops armed with longbows?

All troops with the world "longbowmen" in their name?

Just the troops immediately before the line allowing the stakes option?

Something else?

All troops in the list with longbow capability.

Posted: **Wed Apr 02, 2008 7:16 pm**

Stakes cost 3pts per base so equipped, I'm afraid, which is half the bases in each BG in those armies mentionned.

In the WOTR list, unless it's an oversight, it's only "retinue" LB that can have stakes.
In the HYW Continental, it's possible for all the longbow BGs or none.
In the HYW British, it's the same.

Martin

Posted: **Wed Apr 02, 2008 7:50 pm**

WhiteKnight wrote:
In the WOTR list, unless it's an oversight, it's only "retinue" LB that can have stakes.

Nope, all - as it doesn't say "stakes for retinue longbow BGs" it says "longbow BG".

Posted: **Wed Apr 02, 2008 7:53 pm**

petedalby wrote:But the defenders would be in close combat with mounted when they are charged?

Pete

When they make contact i.e. when the charge has finished - when the charge is declared and during the charge they are not in close combat so the prohibition does not apply.

Posted: **Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:27 am**

WhiteKnight wrote:
"In the WOTR list, unless it's an oversight, it's only "retinue" LB that can have stakes. "

Nik replied:
"Nope, all - as it doesn't say "stakes for retinue longbow BGs" it says "longbow BG"."

Thanks for the correction! I'd assumed 'cos it was in the core section in WOTR,it only applied to core troops...in the preceeding list it's in the optional section, as it's optional for all or no BGs and I'd supposed it was put in the core in the WOTR list to suggest some significant difference.

Martin

Posted: **Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:00 am**

Yup, it should probably have been in the optional section in an ideal world - some things always get through the checking and rechecking

Posted: **Thu Apr 03, 2008 3:58 pm**

Hi ,
not so surprising if it was only allowed for the retinue longbowmen , seems to require training to use the stakes efficiently , undrilled troops may had nothing more than few days to learn how doing one or two lines to shoot , , just a suggestion if you allow stakes only for the retinue ( and don't change anything more than real mistakes in the lists ) is there any difference ?

regards

thefrenchjester " 100 HYW longbowmen fan" ( ok with stakes for all

)

Posted: **Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:00 pm**

How much training do you think it takes to hammer a stake into the ground?

Posted: **Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:30 pm**

nikgaukroger wrote:How much training do you think it takes to hammer a stake into the ground?

Well there'd probably be a 'Health & Safety' certificate to pass first on handling the hammer. There might also be considerable dispute over skilled 'hammerers' having to perfom the duties of semi-skilled 'stakeholders' on occasion. Maybe that's one of the reasons the war lasted over 100 years...I can feel another doctorate coming on!

Posted: **Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:45 pm**

I have been looking in the various FoG books to learn the rules about stake usage and effects.
Q1) Where in the rule books are the rules and effects of stakes on mounted and dismounted forces fully delineated/described?
Q2) What is the FoG-assumed effect of stakes on Kn and other mounted units? From history, it seems like a cohesion check and/or complex move check is in order when horses face stakes - with or without a POA adjustment.

Thanks/Cheers!

Posted: **Thu Apr 24, 2008 8:00 pm**

Hiya

As a frequent stake-user, may I direct you to p 121 of the main ruleset. They have no effect on foot of elephants. Horse/camel mounted guys don't count as in open terrain when in contact with them, so get fewer POAs, and the defenders get a +1 POA. These are on p 96/7.

In the most ususal case, Knights fight Longbows at a -1/+1 in impact and no POA in melee, though the Knights are often dice down by then...

Martin

Posted: **Thu Apr 24, 2008 8:01 pm**

Claudius wrote:I have been looking in the various FoG books to learn the rules about stake usage and effects.
Q1) Where in the rule books are the rules and effects of stakes on mounted and dismounted forces fully delineated/described?

Page 121 - under "Portable Defences."

Claudius wrote:Q2) What is the FoG-assumed effect of stakes on Kn and other mounted units? From history, it seems like a cohesion check and/or complex move check is in order when horses face stakes - with or without a POA adjustment.

From the above... "PD are treated as field fortifications when their defenders are in close combat against mounted opponents other than elephants, but give no advantage against, foot, elephants or shooting."

Cheers,
Scott

Posted: **Thu Apr 24, 2008 8:24 pm**

The p. 121 and p 96-7 stakes rules seem minimal, and rather incomplete.
Which is why I wrote the original post.
Seems like this section of the rules could be expanded a bit for clarity.

The "+" in POA seems to model stakes rather weakly.

Horse-mounted impact units first have to get through the stakes to attack the foot units behind the stakes.
If they do not get through then there is no attack.
One could require that the horse-mounted units dismount at/before [a CMT?] the stakes, and then proceed as foot through the stakes.
If anything, horse-mounted units encountering stakes should have to undergo a complex move test [as the horses may balk], and/or a cohesion check since dismounting in front of defended stakes may affect morale.

Cheers/Thanks

Slitherine

Stakes query

Stakes query

Realted "Stakes" question

Re: Realted "Stakes" question