I was surprised to read this passage in the Book of Battle II, page 65:

"When an enemy archer unit shoots at the player knights, each player knight unit must decide whether or not to oppose it with his melee weapon skill, part against the missile attack, part for melee later."

This would seem to be in direct opposition to the game's core rulebook, which states on pg. 118 under Range Combat:

"All ranegd attacks are made as unopposed rolls."

Is it intended that the Book of Battle rules override the game's normal rules in this circumstance? Or is this an error on the BoB's part? I admit it seems odd for the player knights to oppose a volley of missile fire with their sword skill.

Its not so much, opposing misile fire with sword skill as much as it is evading / outmaneouvreing the misile fire. On a success you they miss, on a partial you 'get shield', on a failure they hit you with only armour to stop damage. .

Nornally, say if PK's were riding near Nottingham (ahem) and found them selves attacked by bandits with green tights, I'd give them horsemanship v misile file. If they rather put shields up, then maybe sword.

The split of the skill reflects the attention you are giving each threat.

I'd say despite what the main rule book states, use your judgement whether it should be opposed or not.

Just for clarity, are you saying that if the player knights defeat the missile attacks with their weapon skills, they would not deal damage to the archers?

Does anyone run it that way, outside of Battle. You know, divide weapon skill vs ranged attackers or not use that ruling, about splitting skill vs missiles and use the -5 for ranged if the knight has a shield for Battle instead?

I find reversing those two ruling is actually better and makes more sense. In Battle -5 for ranged, in regular combat divide weapon skill up for mutilple attackers including missile. I also use this rule: Enemy ranged gets -5, if you try to dodge and arent in melee and use your shield.

I think I would be more comfortable having ranged weapons just work one way, universally, throughout the game. There are enough rules to keep track of as it is.

My feedback would be to use the normal ranged attack rules from the Pendragon rulebook in Book of Battle, and simply disregard the missile phase for the purposes of melee round round. Let the missile phase exist as a way for archers to deal minor damage to knights and harrass them, but let the melee phase be the thing that dictates the success or failure of the unit.

I was surprised to read this passage in the Book of Battle II, page 65:

"When an enemy archer unit shoots at the player knights, each player knight unit must decide whether or not to oppose it with his melee weapon skill, part against the missile attack, part for melee later."

This would seem to be in direct opposition to the game's core rulebook, which states on pg. 118 under Range Combat:

"All ranegd attacks are made as unopposed rolls."

Is it intended that the Book of Battle rules override the game's normal rules in this circumstance? Or is this an error on the BoB's part? I admit it seems odd for the player knights to oppose a volley of missile fire with their sword skill.


I took it as Battle is different, given that each round it how many minutes?

When under missile attack you either split you roll on the hope that your success complete negates damage or partial success gets you your shield, or you dont split and just take the damage or hope they miss.

Just for clarity, are you saying that if the player knights defeat the missile attacks with their weapon skills, they would not deal damage to the archers?


Yes. No damage to the archers. But, depending on the circumstances, the archers have been defeated and it may be that they may not fire on that PK any longer. He may be out of range, (too close / far), too quick, in cover / covered by friends / foes) or the archers simply decide to target someone else.

I think I would be more comfortable having ranged weapons just work one way, universally, throughout the game. There are enough rules to keep track of as it is.

My feedback would be to use the normal ranged attack rules from the Pendragon rulebook in Book of Battle, and simply disregard the missile phase for the purposes of melee round round. Let the missile phase exist as a way for archers to deal minor damage to knights and harrass them, but let the melee phase be the thing that dictates the success or failure of the unit.


You make a solid point about consistancy. in the chaos of battle the -5 for shield feels right though. I can see how you might reduce your weapon skill, to block a ranged shot while engaged in melee though, that would hinder your skill, for now Ill consider that a optional rule and the -5 for shield the default rule in or out of battle

I think I would be more comfortable having ranged weapons just work one way, universally, throughout the game. There are enough rules to keep track of as it is.

My feedback would be to use the normal ranged attack rules from the Pendragon rulebook in Book of Battle, and simply disregard the missile phase for the purposes of melee round round. Let the missile phase exist as a way for archers to deal minor damage to knights and harrass them, but let the melee phase be the thing that dictates the success or failure of the unit.


You make a solid point about consistancy. in the chaos of battle the -5 for shield feels right though. I can see how you might reduce your weapon skill, to block a ranged shot while engaged in melee though, that would hinder your skill, for now Ill consider that a optional rule and the -5 for shield the default rule in or out of battle


Oh, excellent suggestion. I love that as an optional rule. I can see a player knight who's both facing deadly archers and also a strong melee unit calling upon his Hate(Saxons) or some other passion to split his skill and try to avoid the missile attack.

I think I'll go ahead and adopt that for my campaign.

I've always used the standard Pendragon rules, ie -5 for using your shield. My players never warmed to the idea of splitting their attacks vs missle weapons - it just seemed too abstract.

I'm also a fan of keeping the rules as universal as possible.

KAP 5.2 Battle Rules also has missile attacks verse charging knights opposed (page 239), but it doesn't look like the skill is split for the later attack. It is mainly to see if the knight is allowed his shield if struck.