In wardens of the west, scenario 12 (uninvited guests) it shows 4 stark archers in the battle components. On the map it shows a unit of archers near Mormont in a forest hex plus a unit in a hills hex near the objective marker closest to the lanisters. Should the second unit not be on the board?

cheers.

Yes, looks like yet another error. That kinda sucks because it seems like FFG is unwilling to post any of the (corrected) Battle Plans for download.

The catapults are also clearly mislabeled in the expansion rules, regarding active and inactive. Also, someone on BGG pointed out that Hedgehog is a defensive formation and Pike Square is an offensive formation, so those are reversed in the rules for Wardens of the West. Obviously, these aren't big issues, but I would still like to know about the extra archer unit.

KenToad said:

I wrote to Rob who said that the archers SHOULD' be there. I jst went to my messages to confirm this bt have forgotten how to find my FFG messages!!! I pretty sure he said the the archers should be there. What was the misprint with catapults, not sure if I remember it?

monk said:

Okay, good to hear that the archers should be there. I would have played it that way anyway, assuming that the visual would be correct in this case.

The catapult rules in Wardens of the West contain a graphic showing both sides of the catapult token, declaring the side with the white banner as inactive, i.e. has been fired, when clearly the picture on the catapult tokens shows the catapult being fired on the non-white side. It's not a huge deal, but it illustrates the (minimal) level of attention to detail that is being given to this game.

And it's sort of frustrating that big, obvious errors like that and the non-existent disarm mechanic and all the scenario blunders and all the mis-referenced pages and misprinted tactics rules, misprinted commander abilities ... make it into the final product of such a graphically well-produced game.

I totaly agree with Ken Toad

One of the disapoints i have of BOW is this lack of "trying to do things more perfect"

About Hedgehog and the other tactic that i dont recall now the name, can you tell me Ken, more about this tatics

Are they tatics aplied to every unit or to new especific units? Tanks

Mancini said:

It's not really a big deal, but sure. In Wardens of the West, the pole guys have two different formations they can go into. You flip the card once per round if you wish and that makes all the pole units go into that formation. Basically, one is a defensive formation that loses dice and can't be flanked. The other is an offensive formation that gains dice but treats every attack upon its unit as a flanking attack.

So, the problem became clear when someone over on BoardGameGeek mentioned that the terms were switched, that the rulebook was calling the offensive formation a "Hedgehog" and the defensive formation a "Pike Square," which apparently is the opposite of the way those formations work in real life.

I checked Wikipedia for a description of the pike weapon and it confirms that the terms for Pikemen formations in Battles of Westeros are the opposite of what they should be:

"On the battlefield pikes were often used in "hedgehog" formations, particularly by troops such as rebel peasants and militias who had not received a great deal of training in tactical maneuvers with the weapon. In these, the troops simply stood and held their pikes out in the direction of the enemy, sometimes standing in great circles or squares with the men facing out in all directions so that the enemy was confronted by a forest of bristling pikeheads, and could not attack the formation from the sides or rear ."

And then the Pike Square is described like this:

"Better-trained troops were capable of using the pike in an aggressive attack, each rank of pikemen being trained to hold their pikes so that they presented enemy infantry with four or five layers of spearheads bristling from the front of the formation.

"As long as it kept good order, such a formation could roll right over enemy infantry, but had its own weaknesses—as the men were all moving forward, they were all facing in a single direction and could not easily turn to protect the vulnerable flanks or rear of the formation , and the huge block of men carrying such unwieldy spears could be difficult to maneuver, other than for straight-forward movement."

So, while not being a problem in the sense that the rules work, the terms have been reversed, which is bound to irritate some of the more knowledgeable players of the game. And it's yet another indication of the lack of attention to detail that we see all over the printed materials of Battles of Westeros.

Tanks Ken Toad

Sometimes it realy disapoints this lack of attention on details given to BOW

What about Wardens of the North? They used the words 'deflect' and 'disarm' interchangeably!! The card says one thing and the rules call it another name. It's not a problem but just shows the lack of thought through the whole process.

Don't get me wrong, this is a great game, but I just can't believe all the mistakes that were made during editing and the way that some of the rules were written. Even when reading the FAQ errata I noticed some points were missing!! If you look at the FAQ it mentiones that one of the commanders in scenario 2 is the wrong rank (should be blue not red). However, it doesn't mention the misprints in the other scenarios. These other misprints are pointed out on the second link on the BoW forum page but are not mentioned in the FAQ, why?

I have recently bought Runewars and I have to say the rule book is very well presented and written. It has no expansions yet where as Bow has 2 (plus a third in development). Maybe they were too eager to get these out they neglected the finer points in development.

Nevertheless, I'm off the play BoW now!!

Oops...meant first link on forum page (official rulings and clarifications) not second link!!

Yes, i get your poin Monk

Bow is a realy fantastic game in my point of view, but it seems as a negligated son for FFG

Speaking of Scenario 12... How many turns are in this scenario? There is a '4' next to the hourglass icon, but the victory conditions mention round 5...?

RefriedNoodle said:

If you want an official answer, you'll have to email support. Please post the response if you do.

I did, and got an answer the same day: "It is supposed to be 4 rounds. I will reflect this in the next FAQ update."

RefriedNoodle said:

Thanks for doing that. It seems like, if there is a discrepancy between the text and a graphic, the graphic tends to be correct.