How does this work? I mean, I see on pg. 53 of BoB the procedure that's used to capture enemies, but how does this work, logistically? Can a PK do this every turn, even after the First Charge?

So the good knights crash through the front lines of the enemy and the PK gets a MW on an enemy (who's on foot, BTW). The circumstances would seem to warrant a hasty withdraw to organize for another charge. And I can see how one would think that in every round—survive first, crush the enemy second, capture people later. So is capturing in the heat of battle possible? Is it meant for the last round only?

Thanks,


T.

Its meant to take one or more extended melee rounds. See page 53 in BoB, "Take a prisoner".

I get that, thanks. I'm more interested on the logistics and the heat of the moment, the flow of the battle. So the PK crashes through and — instead of withdrawing for another charge — he dismounts, picks up a prisoner (or grabs his horse's reins), takes (or leads) him back to camp and then rejoins his unit in time for the next battle round? I understand this is all abstracted in a one-hour per battle round timeframe, I'm just mainly interested in the practicality of this. Is this what players do, nab a ransomable enemy whenever the opportunity arises, regardless of when they are in the press of battle? Is this what's typically done, or expected?

Thanks,


T.

As far as I can understand, a PK with a prisoner would start the next Battle Round burdened. Getting a prisoner out of the battle would require a successful squire roll. Prisoners aren't mentioned in the "Remain disengaged" order, but I guess a PK should be able to get rid of a prisoner as his action.

In my experience, players almost never tries to take prisoners. Why? Because of the danger involved. It though enough to get out of a battle in one piece, especially the Huge and Large ones, and the ones versus Saxons and Romans. My players, at least, seem to think its not worth the risk. (This also has to do with the book of the Manor, which creates solid, land based wealth, giving players very little incentive to risk their PKs in combat for a measly £12 or £18 (or whatever) ransom).

This is one point where the BoB do not track very well to history. Taking prisoners were as far as I know a very important aspect of medieval combat, at least until the 14th century, when those pesky commoners with their pikes, halberds and longbows started to ruin the show. It's hard to take worthwhile prisoners from a pike block with 2000 commoners, and ever harder to surrender in the midst of a barrage of arrows ...

There you go. That's the discussion I wanted to have. Seems to me, prisoners should be something that happens in the aftermath of battle, not in the thick of it. Maybe your PK has a chance to come across a wounded enemy, left behind. the higher the level of rout, the higher the chance may be, etc.

There you go. That's the discussion I wanted to have. Seems to me, prisoners should be something that happens in the aftermath of battle, not in the thick of it. Maybe your PK has a chance to come across a wounded enemy, left behind. the higher the level of rout, the higher the chance may be, etc.


Well, I would say that it should also be a more important part of battle (but its a good point).

And, it occurs to me, that Bob diverges from history might be claimed to be less of a problem - its a fantasy game, after all, and there are many aspects that is not very historically founded. A worse critique could be that taking prisoners is a rather important aspect of the literary canon. Battles (and tourneys) in Malory is all about unhorsing and horsing leaders, and I think taking prisoners figure a bit too (?). The battles we see in BoB is very far from "Malloryian battle". I'm not saying this is a BAD THING per se, I'm just stating that this is so.

If I ever comes around to it, I'll write a part five of my installment of thread on my experiences in running the whole KAP and say something of changes I would like to see in the battle system. It partly has to do with "Malloryian battle".

I get that, thanks. I'm more interested on the logistics and the heat of the moment, the flow of the battle. So the PK crashes through and — instead of withdrawing for another charge — he dismounts, picks up a prisoner (or grabs his horse's reins),
Meanwhile the rest of eschille, obeying orders, has executed the Results of their Maneuver
That is, if they choose to NOT get dragged into one of the most lucrative and glorious moments of Battle in the Extended Melee Round.
Let us presume that he does in fact survive the extended combat

takes (or leads) him back to camp
Not yet!
The next Round
He is now commander of his own unit
he is Alone in Battle, and Burdened (and usually also leaving behind his squire or with a double burden)
Holy mackerel, he made it! he can break out of battle with good luck and skill

and then rejoins his unit in time for the next battle round?
Not yet! He drops off his prisoner and is in the Back of Battle. He still has to make a Battle Roll, as he is still in the battle, but usually modifiers will let him do what he wants.
Unengaged, in the rear of Battle, he can do that list of things in the book, including "look for his eschille," which has gone through their own 2 rounds of battle and might be anywhere on the field.
Whatever the rules say--Awareness to see the banner?
Unengaged, the knight can move forward 2 zones if he makes the roll, and if the unit is in that zone, he rejoins it

Is this what players do, nab a ransomable enemy whenever the opportunity arises, regardless of when they are in the press of battle?
Some do
Some care more for their unit (for instance, what if his absence no longer allows them to Triumph?)
Or their lord
or Hate the enemy too much to take ransoms

Is this what's typically done, or expected?
It depends on the circumstances, and on the individual, and on the Unit Leader
Consequences of taking a prisoner during battle:
Glory? Yes, as per usual Glory assignment
Money? Yep, as per ransom (the money given there is the amount the knight gets for his "third of a third of a third")
Loss of Honor? Nope, none
Disapproval of the men in his eschille that he lives with, grew up with, and upon whom his life depends in battle? THAT is up to the individuals, not rules...

In my experience, players almost never tries to take prisoners. Why? Because of the danger involved.

Yes. In did not mention this in my previous post.
There are actually many stupid things to do in the BoB options
People say, "Who would ever do that?"
and I reply
"No matter how stupid it is, if it's possible I'll put it in"
Why6?
Because if I don't SOMEONE WILL BITCH IT'S NOT THERE! :D


(This also has to do with the book of the Manor, which creates solid, land based wealth, giving players very little incentive to risk their PKs in combat for a measly £12 or £18 (or whatever) ransom).
A distinction that came up in history

This is one point where the BoB do not track very well to history.
I do have to disagree
just take prisoners at the right time of the battle

Taking prisoners were as far as I know a very important aspect of medieval combat, at least until the 14th century, when those pesky commoners with their pikes, halberds and longbows started to ruin the show.
When "War is a business" got powerful...

That's a great, in-depth reply, Greg. Thanks so much for taking the time. I had no idea all that would be involved. Coolness.


T.

I am recalling the siege of Front-de-Boeuf's castle in the 1982 Ivanhoe where Richard defeats de Bracy. De Bracy yields and gives his parole to Richard. As an honourable knight, he does not attempt to rejoin the battle but makes his way to Prince John on his way to his banishment from England. What I would do in running a battle is give the victorious knight the option of accepting the yielding knight's parole. Then after the battle, I would have the defeated knight roll against his honour to see if he delivers his ransom.

I would expect this to be the norm during Arthur's reign, if not during the anarchy period.