Log in

View Full Version : First run through on book of battle - a few questions



Morningkiller
01-11-2012, 04:27 AM
Just ran through the Battle of Lindsey in the GPC using the new rules from BoB. Great fun - I like how the PCs unit has a real identity, place in the battle and the story now and how they can really influence the outcome. Earl Roderick's men cut their way through to the saxon camp on the very turn the invader's center collapsed. Some say it was Duke Gorlois who won the day but they know the truth.

The first charge was against berserkers and went very well (I used the saxon enemies from the basic book rather than the book of armies as I want to get the players up to speed with the swystem before siccing the crazy saxons on them). The Berserkers were using all-out attacks on the player knights so I was wondering what the situation with regards to Unit Results is if a PC hits his berserker and is then himself hit in return. My gut says that should be a tie for the player knight as the weapon roll was unopposed and succesful unless the saxons blow took him out of the fight due to unconsciousness or death. Any opinions? I would also like opinions on how to handle the followers fight phase when facing all-out attackers.

The knights triumphed and ended up in the enemy second rank. With the +10 unit intensity modifier as well as the size of the battle the Unit intensity was critting on a 4+ on turn 1. The player knight unit commander has a great battle score (22) but they were really up against it here. The unit intensity scored a critical while Sir Arcavius got a basic success. By my reading this means that he may select from the partial success list ('gets shield') and will then be double attacked by any foes. My confusion here stems from the use of the term 'double attacked'. The unit intensity critical success description on p.22 references p.45. On page 45 there is a description of double attack that is restricted to melee/missile troops who can hurl or fire weapons and engage in close combat (the D symbol). There is also a X2 symbol that means each knight must face two opponents from the same unit simultanaeously. This seems more in keeping with the critical unit intensity result however when I went to explain the various maneuvers open to the unit commander's player I found that 'Stand vs 2' seems to be designed for when the Unit intensity scores a crit and involves neither melee/missile nor multiple foes from the same unit but rather two separate units that the knights must face. The maneuver also mentions that it is for when the unit commander has failed his roll which was not the case here. Confusion ensued so I winged it.

In the end I was unsure but as Sir Arcavius wanted to be super aggresive I allowed him to 'attack vs 2' and they player knights won. They did the same on turn 2 and 3 but in turn 3 things went bad for them (mounted Heorthgeneats turned up) and they were crushed, rebounding while disorganised. An opportunity on turn 4 did mean that they got to disengage and charge next turn, it was against the bigger berserkers. Another triumph put them in the soft underbelly of the 3rd rank and there was no stopping them from then.

So can anyone unravel the question of the double attack for me? It seems like it will happen a lot in big battles once players get stuck in. Forcing the unit commander to take 'Stand vs 2' when he has passed his own battle roll seems like it takes decision away from the players when they already have a smaller list to pick from.

It didn't come up in the battle but I was also wondering about the Withdraw maneruver. It does seem a little too good - mainly due to the +10 bonus to weapon skills. My impression is that this is mostly due to defensive fighting while pulling back so the fact that a triumph can net you a -2 to battle intensity seems a little easy and very good. obviously as heavy cavalry knights will want to charge and withdraw ad infinitum but with the +10 bonus the withdrawal is more likely to turn the battle in their favour than the charge.

Its been about ten years since I played Pendragon last and I'm loving getting back to it. The Player knights have now been promoted to vassals after extreme heroism and all the deaths at Lindsey so next stop is the Book of the Manor. Thanks for any input.

Skarpskytten
01-14-2012, 03:29 PM
I had a PC called "Morningkill" in my latest KAP campaign ... :)


So can anyone unravel the question of the double attack for me? It seems like it will happen a lot in big battles once players get stuck in. Forcing the unit commander to take 'Stand vs 2' when he has passed his own battle roll seems like it takes decision away from the players when they already have a smaller list to pick from.

Yes! The Huge battles are a bore to play: stand vs two and withdraw to charge are the only really worthwhile options. This is a great design flaw in my eyes (though I do think there are many great ideas and concepts in the book of battle).

The smaller battles are much more fun to play. Most of the options comes into play, and the decision of the PKs becomes much less obvious.


It didn't come up in the battle but I was also wondering about the Withdraw maneruver. It does seem a little too good - mainly due to the +10 bonus to weapon skills. My impression is that this is mostly due to defensive fighting while pulling back so the fact that a triumph can net you a -2 to battle intensity seems a little easy and very good. obviously as heavy cavalry knights will want to charge and withdraw ad infinitum but with the +10 bonus the withdrawal is more likely to turn the battle in their favour than the charge.

I think that this has been erratad to +5.

Greg Stafford
01-14-2012, 06:04 PM
Sir Sharpskytten is right, for starters


Some say it was Duke Gorlois who won the day but they know the truth.

I hope you ignored the Gorlois part, or downplayed it at court int he open; and just accorded the victory to your player knights. Plus the Glory!


The first charge was against berserkers and went very well (I used the saxon enemies from the basic book rather than the book of armies as I want to get the players up to speed with the system before siccing the crazy saxons on them). The Berserkers were using all-out attacks on the player knights so I was wondering what the situation with regards to Unit Results is if a PC hits his berserker and is then himself hit in return. My gut says that should be a tie for the player knight as the weapon roll was unopposed and succesful unless the saxons blow took him out of the fight due to unconsciousness or death. Any opinions?

Two hits = a tie

I would also like opinions on how to handle the followers fight phase when facing all-out attackers.

normally, one roll
Incredulous as it may seem at the time everyone suffers the same results!
Or if that bugs you, break them up into parts--oh what the heck, just do it for every gamemaster character while the other players go out for coffee! :)


The knights triumphed and ended up in the enemy second rank. With the +10 unit intensity modifier as well as the size of the battle the Unit intensity was critting on a 4+ on turn 1. The player knight unit commander has a great battle score (22) but they were really up against it here. The unit intensity scored a critical while Sir Arcavius got a basic success. By my reading this means that he may select from the partial success list ('gets shield') and will then be double attacked by any foes.

Yes


My confusion here stems from the use of the term 'double attacked'.
Errata says
change "Double Attacked" to be "Atacked by Two."
To mix things up a bit you roll for two separate units


This seems more in keeping with the critical unit intensity result however when I went to explain the various maneuvers open to the unit commander's player I found that 'Stand vs 2' seems to be designed for when the Unit intensity scores a crit and involves neither melee/missile nor multiple foes from the same unit but rather two separate units that the knights must face.

again, see errata for the correct vocabulary


The maneuver also mentions that it is for when the unit commander has failed his roll which was not the case here. Confusion ensued so I winged it.
Good GMing! If you cannot find a rule just wing it. If a player protests tell him to find the rule and give him the book. "And for this round, we wing it while Sir Rules checks for the future."

In the end I was unsure but as Sir Arcavius wanted to be super aggresive I allowed him to 'attack vs 2' and they player knights won.

by the rules, that is a miscall.
A partial success is still a loss, and only the four results on page 22 are possible.
No attacking.


They did the same on turn 2 and 3 but in turn 3 things went bad for them (mounted Heorthgeneats turned up) and they were crushed, rebounding while disorganised. An opportunity on turn 4 did mean that they got to disengage and charge next turn, it was against the bigger berserkers. Another triumph put them in the soft underbelly of the 3rd rank and there was no stopping them from then.

Again, good GMing!


So can anyone unravel the question of the double attack for me? It seems like it will happen a lot in big battles once players get stuck in. Forcing the unit commander to take 'Stand vs 2' when he has passed his own battle roll seems like it takes decision away from the players when they already have a smaller list to pick from.

Life is tough when 5000 men want to kill you
It is commonly called "the crush of battle"


It didn't come up in the battle but I was also wondering about the Withdraw maneruver. It does seem a little too good

It IS too good.
Errata corrects it to be +5, which is still quite good enough

Keep us informed!

Morningkiller
01-17-2012, 01:40 AM
Thanks for the replies Sharps and Greg. The errata sorts out most of my concerns nicely.

SPOILERS BELOW!

I think I'm up to speed now so I'll put this into practice for the Battle of St. Alban's and see how we get on.

We just had the kidnapping and courtroom drama. Four Christian religious knights were playing and watched as three Bishops and a Saint jockeyed for position and then the Bishops knifed Merlin. They are confused and worried. I think one player wants to invent the separation of church and state after that. The air of impending doom is palpable despite their acquittal. Props to Greg on the structure here. The sequence of events as seen by the player knights through the first seven years of the campaign is really starting to payoff now. False dawns and squandered victories will lead Logres to ruin!

Sir Arcavius is seriously bristling about the point of honour lost due to the accusation. Would it be inappropriate to challenge Sir Brastias to retract his claims of treason given the finding of 'not guilty by reason of pagan ensorcelment'? More specifically would it be dishonourable? I suppose it could be seen as ignoring the King's judgement but it wouldn't be the first time and he may now see Uther as a pawn of the church or a slave to his bloodthirsty wife anyway. A trial of arms might be good fun...though with Brastias hopped up on Loyalty (Uther) and Arcavius impassioned by his Honour someone might well be going home in a box even if it's only to first blood or yielding.