To quote Lustus Naturae:
It's amazing what you miss when you skim read.

(... in this thread: http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php?topic=2024.15)

I've been playing this game since 1990, and as for knockdown this is how I have run it:

A PK or NPC knocked down, has to get up, and will get up in the turn after he was knocked down, in the movement phase. Hence, the character will have to survive one round of combat, with the +5/-5 modifier for getting up and fighting or just take an unopposed hit (which might be better against highly skilled opponents).

Now, reading the rules, I realize thats not how it is supposed to go.

A character in heavy armor "require one full round to regain their feet while engaged [...], effectively standing up at the beginning of the second Movement Phase after declaring their intention to stand up. Now, since we declare things at the start of a round, this is how this will work out.

Round 1, Sir Buttalot is hit above his SIZ, and in the "Losers's phase", fails his DEX and goes down. Since he has been fighting, no movement in the Movement Phase, right?
Round 2, at the start, in Declaration, Sir Buttlot declare to stand up while fighting. Let say he wins, despite the reflexive modifiers. No we reach the first Movement Phase since he got knock down. Nothing happens.
Round 3, in Declaration, Sir Buttlot is still trying to get up. Again, nothing happens in the Resolution phase that affects his efforts to get up. Now we reach the Second Movement Phase, and he finally gets of the ground.

Thats TWO full round fighting, with the modifiers (or the unopposed attack).

Now, "Characters in lighter armor or less may stand up as free action during the round which they were knocked down". So, if the are knocked down in the Loser's Phase, they automatically get up in the same rounds Movement Phase.

Thus, it's not that "everybody stays down one round", as I have run things, but "heavily armored guys stays down two rounds, and all other stay down no time at all".

Is this the correct interpretation? Or am I missing something here?

Not sure where you found the lightly armored variant (not that I wasted a lot of time looking), but upon rereading the rules, I believe that your reading is exactly what the rules says.

I guess we will have to wait to hear from Greg if this is an intentional feature or just a poor wording which was intended to ensure that the knight couldn't get up and run on the same turn, rathe rthan subject the poor bastard to two rounds of -5/+5 disadvantage. :)

Not sure where you found the lightly armored variant (not that I wasted a lot of time looking), but upon rereading the rules, I believe that your reading is exactly what the rules says.

I guess we will have to wait to hear from Greg if this is an intentional feature or just a poor wording which was intended to ensure that the knight couldn't get up and run on the same turn, rathe rthan subject the poor bastard to two rounds of -5/+5 disadvantage. :)


The unarmored is there, on page 117, right after the armored one.

Yeah, I would like to know Gregs ideas on this one.

P115
When knocked down, an armored knight may struggle back to his feet during the Movement Phase next round(i.e., not the one yet to come this round).
'this round' clearly refers to round he was knocked down (not when he makes declaration of getting up).
So only single round of +5/-5

fg,
Thijs

P115
When knocked down, an armored knight may struggle back to his feet during the Movement Phase next round(i.e., not the one yet to come this round).
'this round' clearly refers to round he was knocked down (not when he makes declaration of getting up).
So only single round of +5/-5

fg,
Thijs


It makes sense, but then the wording on page 117 is misleading.

And I'm still a bit surprised about the lightly armored part. A character in light armor on foot suffers no ills from a Knockdown at all? (If horsed, he will fall of his horse, of course - but jump up quickly).

You must have the revised edition, Skarpskytten. I have the 5.0, which only talks about a knight being knocked down.

Thijs, the issue becomes from the structure of the round:
1. Determination Phase (declaring the actions for this round)
2. Resolution Phase (combat and other non-movement actions)
3. Winner’s Phase (if combat was in previous, the winner rolls for damage, etc)
4. Loser’s Phase (if combat was in resolution phase, knockdown & taking damage, etc)
5. Movement Phase (movement actions)

So if the Loser gets knocked down on the 1st round (step 4), he is not allowed to start getting up in the movement phase of the same round (step 5).

Hence, on the second round:
1. Declare intent to get up while fighting (maybe Defensively?).
2. Resolve the combat, using -5/+5 modifier due to trying to get up.
3. Assuming you won, good and well.
4. Assuming you lost but didn't get knocked down, good and well.
5. Now you are actually starting to get up!

So going to the third round:
1. Declare intend to do whatever, but fight is still happening.
2. Resolve the combat, and since the rules said that you'd get up on the SECOND turn after you started getting up, you still suffer the -5/+5 modifier.
3. & 4. Lets assume you were not knocked down again.
5. At the start of your second movement phase, you get up and are free to move.

Hence, you suffer through TWO resolution phases by the strict reading of the rules. This would be resolved by saying that you get up at the end of the movement phase in which you started to stand up (which is actually the way we have played so far in our campaign, and likely continue playing). But the question is, what was Greg's intent while writing this rule? 1 round of disadvantage, or 2 rounds of disadvantage?

Not sure where you found the lightly armored variant (not that I wasted a lot of time looking), but upon rereading the rules, I believe that your reading is exactly what the rules says.

I guess we will have to wait to hear from Greg if this is an intentional feature or just a poor wording which was intended to ensure that the knight couldn't get up and run on the same turn, rathe rthan subject the poor bastard to two rounds of -5/+5 disadvantage. :)


Also dont forget, the opponent gets another +5/-5 modifiers for higher ground on the first round. My players have learnt to get up defensively the hard way, especially if the enemy goes berserk aswell. I think we've lost 3-4 player knights this way. ;)

But the question is, what was Greg's intent while writing this rule?

I have never played it where a character needs two turns to get up.
Will one of you guys please note the pages where these rules appear, so that it can be corrected in the errata?

Will one of you guys please note the pages where these rules appear, so that it can be corrected in the errata?


Done!

And thanks for the clarification.

Also dont forget, the opponent gets another +5/-5 modifiers for higher ground on the first round.


For a total of -10/+10 on the first round for getting up and the higher ground for the opponent? We do not play it this way, although I can see an argument for it. -5/+5 is penalty enough for us, and yes, the PKs tend to go for Defensive option to get up when the opponents are not chivalric enough to let them up without combat.

Greg, thanks for the clarification on the one round rule. Might we get your thoughts on this sub-topic as well?

For a total of -10/+10 on the first round for getting up and the higher ground for the opponent? We do not play it this way, although I can see an argument for it. -5/+5 is penalty enough for us, and yes, the PKs tend to go for Defensive option to get up when the opponents are not chivalric enough to let them up without combat.

That how I play it too ...

Please note that the rules are effectively the same in most circumstances. Quoting from KAP5.1:

P. 115:


When knocked down, an armored knight may struggle back to his feet during the Movement Phase next round (i.e.,
not the one yet to come this round). If the character is attacked before getting up, then he and his opponent(s) re-
ceive –5/+5 reflexive modifiers to their weapon rolls. Unless knocked down again, he regains his footing at the beginning of the next Movement Phase, and may take a move normally at that time.


Round 1: Knocked down.
Round 2: In movement phase, start to get up.
Round 3: At beginning of movement phase, regain feet.
Round 4: Fight normally again.

P. 117:


[Possible Moving action:] Start to get up from the ground while fighting, suffering a reflexive modifier of -5/+5 that round to character and opponent weapon skills. Characters in metal armor require one full round to regain their feet while engaged by an enemy, effectively standing up at the beginning of the second Movement Phase after declaring their intention to stand up.



Round 1: Knocked down.
Round 2: Declare intention to stand up. In movement phase, start to get up.
Round 3: At beginning of movement phase, regain feet.
Round 4: Fight normally again.

The problem only arises when a player announces his intention during the movement phase of turn two. By the letter of the rule, it takes two more movement phases after that till he is standing, so he regains his feet at the beginning of the movement phase in round 4.

(Of course, allowing combined actions would be problematic as well, but starting to rise in the same round the knight was knocked down is already prohibited by the rule on p. 115.)

Did I miss something? Please point it out, so I can feel stupid.

I think the problem comes from the RAW rules that you have to wait till the round after you are knocked down to declare your intention to get up.
In old Pendragon that was automatically assumed you wanted to get up during the first opportunity, which is the movement phase during the round you got knocked down. This is what the rules intend to clarify is not allowed.
Assume that during your declaration phase you say each round:
I attack the guy and in case he runs away I run after him and in case I get knocked down I get up...
Then you are only attacked a single round.

fg,
Thijs

I just compared this with the rules in KAP3. The rules there used to say:



When knocked down, the knight may struggle back to his feet […] taking a round to do so. Unless knocked down again, he regains his footing at the beginning of the next round.


Note: The next round, not the movement phase of the next round as in KAP5. The old rules allowed unhampered fighting to resume one round earlier.

Was this change introduced in KAP4 or only in KAP5?

Is this the correct interpretation? Or am I missing something here?

The way that I play it, and as the rules ought to say, "The knight remains on the ground for the Melee Round in which he was knocked down,. He may get up in the next round, without any DEX roll required."

I think that the reason you misconstrued it is in the use of next round and this round.
Recall that the Movement Phase occurs AFTER the melee phase, and I wrote the rules to make it clear (fail!) that he does not rise in the same round he was knocked down, but the next one.

The way that I play it, and as the rules ought to say, "The knight remains on the ground for the Melee Round in which he was knocked down,. He may get up in the next round, without any DEX roll required."

I think that the reason you misconstrued it is in the use of next round and this round.
Recall that the Movement Phase occurs AFTER the melee phase, and I wrote the rules to make it clear (fail!) that he does not rise in the same round he was knocked down, but the next one.


Well, glad we sorted that one out. I made a note of it in the errata for 5.1.

This made me wonder: How often is the PDF updated?
I'd like a hardcover copy of 5.1 and would like it to include the current errata.

The way that I play it, and as the rules ought to say, "The knight remains on the ground for the Melee Round in which he was knocked down,. He may get up in the next round, without any DEX roll required."

I think that the reason you misconstrued it is in the use of next round and this round.
Recall that the Movement Phase occurs AFTER the melee phase, and I wrote the rules to make it clear (fail!) that he does not rise in the same round he was knocked down, but the next one.


Well, glad we sorted that one out. I made a note of it in the errata for 5.1.


Does this mean round 1, knight attacks and is knocked down
round 2, he gets up and can then attack, move etc. as if nothing happened, because this is the way it reads by Gregs explanation.

or does he get up at the move phase in round 2, unless he was wearing light armor? which is how I believe its suppose to work.

To clarify I think it should read

Those in light armor can get up in the round they are knocked down, doing so in the move phase.
Those in heavy armor get up in the move phase of the following round that they were knocked down.

or something to that effect so its clear what is being said.

Those in light armor can get up in the round they are knocked down, doing so in the move phase.
Those in heavy armor get up in the move phase of the following round that they were knocked down.


Yes, thats correct.