I have a bunch of questions after having read the book of battle back to back today. I thought I’d post them, and would be very grateful for any help clarifying these things. :)

Loving the game, and would also love to understand the battle rules better! Thank you for your help guys! :D

Questions about enemy units

1. How does the “Bow+S” symbol interact with the “missile fire from non-engaged units” rule? Do the units with “Bow+S” symbols who are not engaged first check if they are close enough to fire at all (1/3 chance according to the symbol, so 1-2 on a d6) and then also check if they target the players (on a 1-4 for example if the players are fighting in rank 6)?.

2. What happens if the same enemy is rolled more than once on the army table when rolling multiple enemy choices?

3. How are destroyed enemy units handled? Is any dice showing their number re-rolled, or is such a dice counted as “no enemy” (i.e. if the player unit would be attacked by two and one of the two rolls would be a destroyed unit, would they simply be attacked by one?)

4. When the unit commander sees a “hated enemy” and has to choose to engage it if possible, does that mean a 16+ passion, or just a hate passion directed at that enemy at any value?

5. In the book of battle “Fanatics” are described as having their “always on” passions included in their listed skill. The book does not say this about other units with the ability to become impassioned, is their passion bonus added in the normal manner (assuming it doesn’t come up as “having been used”)? This would mean badder berserkers have a skill of 22, and the “elite axemen” a high probability of 30 skill.

Questions about player knights

6. On page 113, in the example battle of Medbourne, the followers receive both lance and height advantage bonuses. The “player” knights fought great spear armed enemies and only received +5. Is this an error, or do followers fight generic “other” units rather than the same one?

7. Is it correct that player passions only last one battle round, but melancholy for a failed roll lasts the entire battle?

8. When exactly is the “-5 unit cohesion” modifier in table 4.2 applied? It cant be in the round the unit actually pulls back (the roll for maneuver has already been made) is it applied the next round?

Questions about followers

9. What exactly can constitute a “follower” for the purpose of something useful in battle? More specifically, for the bodyguard bonus. Are only knights ever counted?

10. In the example on page 114, the bodyguard bonus is expressed as “lord wolf” (the player character) himself and his opponent both re-rolling (Interestingly, lord wolfs second opponent who missed doesn’t re-roll). Is this correct? Is the forced re-roll selective, or does it involve all the opponents of the leader? Do the other players re-roll as well?

11. Is it correct that there is no longer any lower limit to the number of followers needed for a “bodyguard” action (page 66 does not mention a lower limit, but in the example with lord wolf it mentions “a minimum of five knights”)

12. What is the consequence of “not enough followers” when checking casualties for followers after having used a bodyguard bonus? Table 4.17 mentions a consequence, but I can’t find it anywhere.

Questions about melee

13. The example on page 105 (Battle of Maercreed creek) states that the “pull back” penalty and “mounted” bonus cancel each-other out. Is this an oversight, since according to the “dividing attacks” recap at p. 68 the bonus is applied after the split, potentially resulting in more than +5?

14. When using the “Run away” maneuver and opposing the enemies’ weapon skill with horsemanship (or dex), does the +5 height advantage modifier apply? Or does the +10 modifier from the battle section in KaP 5.1 (page 211) apply?

15. If the Reckless attack option is used in a battle round, how are wins/losses calculated, since both attacks are unopposed and very likely to hit unless the reckless attacker is knocked down?

16. The BoB rules states several times that there is no need to roll damage vs enemies in battles, as the weapon skill rolls are used to calculate success or failure. However, it also states that if a foe is killed outright, suffers a major wound or is otherwise entirely disabled in a single round the player should collect full glory for their defeat equal to the foes melee skill or battle skill, whichever is greater. This seems a good reason to roll damage, which is it really?

Questions about extended melee rounds

17. The extended melee rounds rules specifically state that in rounds beyond the first the players fight “one opponent per player character” each round. How does that interact with having fought multiple units on the first round? Is one of them chosen at random as opponents for the round?

18. During extended melee rounds when a character dismounts to grab an unconscious friend they “have to survive an attack from their foe”. What does that mean? Is that attack unopposed, or is it an opposed roll with the “combined action” malus of +5/-5?

19. When attempting to kill or capture an enemy commander or hero, they appear on the second or third extended melee round. According to the rules they often (sensibly) retreat, but when exactly can they do this? Can they automatically retreat if any character is still engaged from previous rounds (i.e. every player character becomes engaged and the commander/hero does not -have- to face an opponent)? Of course, this would be a lot up to the “character” of the hero or commander, but when can players -force- the issue?

I'll try to answer at the best of my possibilities, however be warned that I don't have any experience with actually using the rules in play, so this is just my "theoretical interpretation" of the rules.
I urge Greg to review these answers and give us his wisdom!





1. How does the “Bow+S” symbol interact with the “missile fire from non-engaged units” rule? Do the units with “Bow+S” symbols who are not engaged first check if they are close enough to fire at all (1/3 chance according to the symbol, so 1-2 on a d6) and then also check if they target the players (on a 1-4 for example if the players are fighting in rank 6)?.
Yes.




2. What happens if the same enemy is rolled more than once on the army table when rolling multiple enemy choices?
I would re-roll until a different unit comes up.




3. How are destroyed enemy units handled? Is any dice showing their number re-rolled, or is such a dice counted as “no enemy” (i.e. if the player unit would be attacked by two and one of the two rolls would be a destroyed unit, would they simply be attacked by one?)
Again, I would reroll, otherwise you would effectively change the tactical situation.




4. When the unit commander sees a “hated enemy” and has to choose to engage it if possible, does that mean a 16+ passion, or just a hate passion directed at that enemy at any value?
Just a Hate Passion, at any value.




5. In the book of battle “Fanatics” are described as having their “always on” passions included in their listed skill. The book does not say this about other units with the ability to become impassioned, is their passion bonus added in the normal manner (assuming it doesn’t come up as “having been used”)? This would mean badder berserkers have a skill of 22, and the “elite axemen” a high probability of 30 skill.
The Passion bonus is added as normal. The NPCs have to roll vs. the Passion, and will only get the bonus if they succeed.




6. On page 113, in the example battle of Medbourne, the followers receive both lance and height advantage bonuses. The “player” knights fought great spear armed enemies and only received +5. Is this an error, or do followers fight generic “other” units rather than the same one?
It's stated that the players get a +5 bonus for attacking Infantry (Discover Opponent Phase), but NOT the Charge bonus, since they are attacking troops that use Great Spears (Immediate Conditions). It should be +5 for everyone, apart from Sir Wolf who is impassionaied (+15 total).
There seem to be some errors in the text as written (including the fact that the bonuses listed are attributed to the Charge and not to the "vs. infantry" condition). It's not clear why Sir Adaman has +10, I'd say he has +5.




7. Is it correct that player passions only last one battle round, but melancholy for a failed roll lasts the entire battle?
Yes.




8. When exactly is the “-5 unit cohesion” modifier in table 4.2 applied? It cant be in the round the unit actually pulls back (the roll for maneuver has already been made) is it applied the next round?
This modifier is applied on the round after the pull back decision has been made.




9. What exactly can constitute a “follower” for the purpose of something useful in battle? More specifically, for the bodyguard bonus. Are only knights ever counted?
Yes. The text at p 66 says "he has at least one knight Follower with him"




10. In the example on page 114, the bodyguard bonus is expressed as “lord wolf” (the player character) himself and his opponent both re-rolling (Interestingly, lord wolfs second opponent who missed doesn’t re-roll). Is this correct? Is the forced re-roll selective, or does it involve all the opponents of the leader? Do the other players re-roll as well?
Lord Wolf decides to re-roll immediately after seeing the result of his Opposed Roll against the Mercenary, before the Spearman rolls. So, both he and the Mercenaries re-roll, but the Spearman rolls just once and fails.




11. Is it correct that there is no longer any lower limit to the number of followers needed for a “bodyguard” action (page 66 does not mention a lower limit, but in the example with lord wolf it mentions “a minimum of five knights”)
This is unclear. At page 66 it says "he has at least one [B]knight[\B] Follower with him", at page 113 it is "Since Lord Wolf has more than ve knight followers,".




12. What is the consequence of “not enough followers” when checking casualties for followers after having used a bodyguard bonus? Table 4.17 mentions a consequence, but I can’t find it anywhere.
The consequence is present at page 14: "Insufficient Followers: Battle skill next round is penalized by -2 per man that ought to have been lost."




13. The example on page 105 (Battle of Maercreed creek) states that the “pull back” penalty and “mounted” bonus cancel each-other out. Is this an oversight, since according to the “dividing attacks” recap at p. 68 the bonus is applied after the split, potentially resulting in more than +5.
I'd say that both the Pull Back penalty and the mounted bonus are applied to the characters' Weapon Skills, so they are both applied after splitting the skill and thus cancel each other out.




14. When using the “Run away” maneuver and opposing the enemies’ weapon skill with horsemanship (or dex), does the +5 height advantage modifier apply? Or does the +10 modifier from the battle section in KaP 5.1 (page 211) apply?
I'd say that the +10 from KAP 5.1 doesn't apply, since this is a different system. I'd apply the +5 bonus for mounted vs. infantry, since it's easier to flee from soldiers on foot than from mounted ones. I wouldn't apply the bonus when using DEX, since in this case you are unmounted as well (and would apply a -5 penalty if fleeing on foot from a mounted enemy).




15. If the Reckless attack option is used in a battle round, how are wins/losses calculated, since both attacks are unopposed and very likely to hit unless the reckless attacker is knocked down?
Where is this option? I didn't find it anywhere.




16. The BoB rules states several times that there is no need to roll damage vs enemies in battles, as the weapon skill rolls are used to calculate success or failure. However, it also states that if a foe is killed outright, suffers a major wound or is otherwise entirely disabled in a single round the player should collect full glory for their defeat equal to the foes melee skill or battle skill, whichever is greater. This seems a good reason to roll damage, which is it really?
Roll for damage. It gives the benefits of Glory if the enemy is killed/disabled AND is good for the PLAYERS' (not characters') morale!




17. The extended melee rounds rules specifically state that in rounds beyond the first the players fight “one opponent per player character” each round. How does that interact with having fought multiple units on the first round? Is one of them chosen at random as opponents for the round?
I'd say the enemy is chosen at random. However, it could be chosen by the GM, or by the players.




18. During extended melee rounds when a character dismounts to grab an unconscious friend they “have to survive an attack from their foe”. What does that mean? Is that attack unopposed, or is it an opposed roll with the “combined action” malus of +5/-5?
I'd apply the "combined action" malus and also, if suitable (i.e., vs. a mounted enemy), the mounted/unmounted malus.




19. When attempting to kill or capture an enemy commander or hero, they appear on the second or third extended melee round. According to the rules they often (sensibly) retreat, but when exactly can they do this? Can they automatically retreat if any character is still engaged from previous rounds (i.e. every player character becomes engaged and the commander/hero does not -have- to face an opponent)? Of course, this would be a lot up to the “character” of the hero or commander, but when can players -force- the issue?
I'd say that the players never force the enemy commander to choose flight or fight. It's the GM's duty to evaluate the situation and decide according to the commander's character, dramatic necessity, campaign development, and so on.

Like Roberto, I haven't used BoB 2 rules in actual play, and to be honest, I have only glanced through them. So this is more to say 'this is how I would GM it'.

I agree with many of Roberto's points, but I'll focus on a couple of them that I disagree with or have a comment to make.

15. Reckless Attack:
The Uncontrolled/Berserk attack option? Remember that the non-berserk attack hits first, and might knock the PK out of the saddle or wound him badly enough that the berserk attack never happens. This would be clearly a loss (as is the PK missing when the enemy hits). If both hit or miss, I'd consider it a draw (unfortunately, BoB 2 considers all draws to be wins, which is a fault of the system IMHO), and if just the PK hits, it is a win.

16. Rolling damage:
The battle rules already give you the Glory for defeating the enemy on a win in the opposed resolution, so rolling for damage is unnecessary for the purposes of Glory. However, it doesn't slow the game down much to have the players roll, since you can check the other results meanwhile. Also, I would be inclined to rule that if they cause a major wound, they can try to capture the enemy knight or loot the dead knight (likely result of a critical) next round or some such. Then the damage roll would be a worthwhile roll to make, since it leads to some consequences. I am not an advocate of useless rolls, even for 'morale' purposes. :)

17. Multiple units and extended rounds:
I admit, I would be tempted to have two enemies per PK in this case. If they had to fight whilst outnumbered in the regular round, I don't see why the extended melee would suddenly become 'easier'. Instead, I would take the comment of one opponent each to refer to the NORMAL case of fighting just against one unit to start with. Note that in the Fight an Enemy Leader -snippet (pp. 78 - 79), the number of opponents is 1 per PK PLUS any surviving fighters from the previous battle round (which I presume to mean those who won their opposed resolution), although I guess damage rolls and major wound thresholds might be used instead). In any case, this definitely shows that the "1 per PK" is simply the usual rule, rather than covering ALL cases.

EDIT:
As for questions 2 & 3, I'd add that limiting the number of enemy units to just 1 per type in the enemy roll table is an optional rule, not the default. Thus, you could fight against two of the same type of unit, even identical ones, several times.

My 2c

5 and 7. Remember that also for the enemy units they only have their passion bonus in one round. You must determine if they already have used it in the previous rounds. Fanatics have the special rule that they are always impassioned.

9. I would allow other mounted followers as well or in a case the knight is on foot other footmen.

15. In a normal combat round their is only a very small chance both roll the same number and are able to hit. This is considered a tie and as such a win. If someone is using this tactic if both succeed you could still look at both scores and give the win to the highest to hit roll. Also remember that the use of the reckless attack in battle is extremely dangerous. There is a good chance you are knocked of your horse and that means you are alone in the next round. Your unit leader will not like it since he is losing his men this way. Being in a unit is the best defense in battle.

16. I do not use the rule that a major wound or worse gives glory equal to the skil. I only record the win or loss.

17. I agree with Morien in this. I would probably give them 1 opponent from each unit they attacked before.

18. I would make the attack unopposed, since the knight is not fighting , but doing other things. Maybe I would allow a DEX rol lto see if they can protect themselves with their shield. In one case I allowed others to take the hit and defend against two opponents, thus protecting the helpful knight and he does not need to survive an attack.

I'm admittedly a BoB n00b, but my 2c:


18. During extended melee rounds when a character dismounts to grab an unconscious friend they “have to survive an attack from their foe”. What does that mean? Is that attack unopposed, or is it an opposed roll with the “combined action” malus of +5/-5?

I've seen my players' keenness to capture ransom-worthy foes, so I'm intending to use this rule for the enemy capture thing too. I figure, if you can dismount a help a friend, you can just as easily dismount and capture an enemy once you've overcome their MW (excluding commanders who surely have some hardcore bodyguards).

Our first BoB battle will be next week - we'll see how it goes...

Thank you very much for all your answers :) Its great to see so many taking the time to talk about this!

I've been reading and thinking, and wanted to add some more to the discussion.


2. What happens if the same enemy is rolled more than once on the army table when rolling multiple enemy choices?

3. How are destroyed enemy units handled? Is any dice showing their number re-rolled, or is such a dice counted as “no enemy” (i.e. if the player unit would be attacked by two and one of the two rolls would be a destroyed unit, would they simply be attacked by one?)

As far as I can see, on page 61 and 62 of the book of battle, the "one unit of each around the PCs" rule is not optional. And, given that this is true, would it be more interesting, or logical, not to re-roll? That is, if you roll the same unit twice, you meet one less unit. Or, if you've destroyed a unit and roll it again, you fight one less unit. That way impact is higher, yes, but might that be interesting?


9. What exactly can constitute a “follower” for the purpose of something useful in battle? More specifically, for the bodyguard bonus. Are only knights ever counted?

Interesting idea to allow mounted sargeants, mercenaries and the like if they are part of the PCs fighting unit during the battle.


10. In the example on page 114, the bodyguard bonus is expressed as “lord wolf” (the player character) himself and his opponent both re-rolling (Interestingly, lord wolfs second opponent who missed doesn’t re-roll). Is this correct? Is the forced re-roll selective, or does it involve all the opponents of the leader? Do the other players re-roll as well?

The example as written is;
Melee Phase: Lord Wolf decides that he will ignore
the Grunting Spearmen to focus on the Mounted
Mercenaries, whom he thinks are the more dangerous
foes (no -/+5 bonus!). Luckily, the spearman
misses, but Lord Wolf fumbles his roll against the
mercenary and is critically hit! Lord Wolf opts to
use his Bodyguard Bonus.

The bodyguard bonus phase is also step 5, after the entire melee step which is step 4. So lord Wolf could not have used the bodyguard bonus after one attack against him but before the next. The phrasing "...and the leader may attempt the melee
round again" would seem to indicate that all rolls are re-rolled, not just one, but the example says otherwise. Hm, this one isnt easy :P.


13. The example on page 105 (Battle of Maercreed creek) states that the “pull back” penalty and “mounted” bonus cancel each-other out. Is this an oversight, since according to the “dividing attacks” recap at p. 68 the bonus is applied after the split, potentially resulting in more than +5?

A prior discussion indicated that only reflexive modifiers are applied after the split. If that is the case, then the base weapon skill would be modified by -5 (for pulling back) and then split, after that split the +5 mounted modifier would be added to each of the split attacks. Does that make sense? :)


15. If the Reckless attack option is used in a battle round, how are wins/losses calculated, since both attacks are unopposed and very likely to hit unless the reckless attacker is knocked down?

Hm, so if an enemy were to use reckless attack against you it would be something like this; If your attack disables the enemy so he cannot attack, its a win for you. If you miss and he hits, its a loss.

In any other cicumstance, I.e. you hit and he hits but neither dies, you fight defensively and both cancel eachother out, or both miss are a tie. Does that seem right?

Oh yeah, using reckless attack would be due to fighting the melee "as a normal combat round". Which would include special tactics if you allow them in your game :)

As far as I can see, on page 61 and 62 of the book of battle, the "one unit of each around the PCs" rule is not optional. And, given that this is true, would it be more interesting, or logical, not to re-roll? That is, if you roll the same unit twice, you meet one less unit. Or, if you've destroyed a unit and roll it again, you fight one less unit. That way impact is higher, yes, but might that be interesting?


Quoting from p. 61 (emphasis mine):
"Gamemasters may keep track of the fate of indi-
vidual units fought by the PCs."

It is up to the individual GM to decide.
If you wish to keep track of them and not reroll, thus giving the PKs the benefit of having destroyed an enemy unit that would otherwise gang up on them, up to you. It likely doesn't matter much either way except by a remarkable coincidence.

In fact, the All-Knight Army (Uther & Anarchy Periods) on p. 93 implies that you should NOT use the unit destruction, since you only have 3 possible units, rather than the 20 a normal table has and with which the unit destruction was intended to be used. The same army table implies strongly, to me, that you would have multiple units of X type of knights. (Granted, I am not really a fan of those Army lists, as the weapon skills and damages listed do not fit that well with the individual enemies in the KAP 5.1. For instance, you'd expect many more mid-level knights rather than those high-skill, low damage (older) knights. I also would have preferred the All-Knight Army to use the full 1d20 range and make the equipment a Period-dependent variable; at the moment, you have 45% knights during Twilight using chain mails for crying out loud. But that is another discussion for another thread.)


Since I was rereading the book...

4. The example of having to attack a hated enemy appears under the Notable Passions. Reading the whole thing it implies that if your Passion is 16+, you will have to roll Prudent to suppress it, but if the Passion is not Notable, you can suppress it without a roll. Hence, I would say that Rules-As-Written implies that if you have Hate (Saxons) 15, you can act as you please, either attacking the Saxons or leaving them alone. This makes sense to me. Only Notable Traits/Passions force a PK to act in a certain way. Also, since almost all PKs have at least SOME Hate (Saxon) Passion, forcing them to always attack Saxons would be boring. Whereas differentiating the ones who really, really Hate Saxons is more interesting. By the way, I WOULD make a Notable Hate (Saxons) PK roll Prudent (or Loyalty, or Honor, whichever is highest) if the Leader does not go after the Saxons: the PK wants to kill some Saxons!

Tracking damaged or destroyed units will add to the bookkeeping, and the battle system requires already a lot bookkeeping. Furthermore there could be more than 1 unit of a certain type. In the early stages most Saxon armies consist of infantry, so a destroyed mounted unit would remove them, but I would expect more units of simple saxon warriors. Especially in larger battles I would expect more units of the same type. Therefore I do not track this, only if they encounter another 'hero' unit I could say that the unit is decimated and lacks the hero (if they manage to take him in the first go). On the other hand taking a hero usually swings the army intensity strongly and is probably the deciding event.

Again, my 2 cents:

AsFall
"The bodyguard bonus phase is also step 5, after the entire melee step which is step 4. So lord Wolf could not have used the bodyguard bonus after one attack against him but before the next. The phrasing "...and the leader may attempt the melee
round again" would seem to indicate that all rolls are re-rolled, not just one, but the example says otherwise. Hm, this one isnt easy :P."

Me:
The rules also say that the leader can choose to use the bodyguard bonus either before of after his combat roll. Granted, I don't understand what is the purpose of using the bodyguards before knowing the results of the melee. However, this probably means that the decision is made during the melee phase, not after it, so the re-roll could conceivably only apply to some rolls.
In the example it makes sense to re-roll just one of the attacks, since it is reasonable that the bodyguards could only protect the leader from ONE threat, not all of them together.



AshFall:
"A prior discussion indicated that only reflexive modifiers are applied after the split. If that is the case, then the base weapon skill would be modified by -5 (for pulling back) and then split, after that split the +5 mounted modifier would be added to each of the split attacks. Does that make sense?"

Me:
I think it's a matter of GM's judgement. However, I would try to apply all modifiers together. What if a modifier would apply just to some opponents and not to others? This of course can be done ONLY after splitting. And I cannot be bothered to decide (and remember afterwards!) which ones happen before and which after the split.



Morien:
"4. The example of having to attack a hated enemy appears under the Notable Passions. Reading the whole thing it implies that if your Passion is 16+, you will have to roll Prudent to suppress it, but if the Passion is not Notable, you can suppress it without a roll. Hence, I would say that Rules-As-Written implies that if you have Hate (Saxons) 15, you can act as you please, either attacking the Saxons or leaving them alone. This makes sense to me. Only Notable Traits/Passions force a PK to act in a certain way. Also, since almost all PKs have at least SOME Hate (Saxon) Passion, forcing them to always attack Saxons would be boring. Whereas differentiating the ones who really, really Hate Saxons is more interesting. By the way, I WOULD make a Notable Hate (Saxons) PK roll Prudent (or Loyalty, or Honor, whichever is highest) if the Leader does not go after the Saxons: the PK wants to kill some Saxons!

Me:
That's right. In my first answer I wanted to differentiate the "you choose an unit to attack" action (where you would be forced regardless of your score) from the "you activate your Passion" action (where you would only be forced by a notable Passion). However, reading you answer it makes more sense to only force the character to act if he has a notable Passion. It also rings more true: if you have a notable Passion, you always choose the Hated enemy and, impassioned, attack them straight away (after a Prudent roll...). Otherwise, your choice to role-play as you wish.

Quoting from p. 61 (emphasis mine):
"Gamemasters may keep track of the fate of indi-
vidual units fought by the PCs."

It is up to the individual GM to decide.
If you wish to keep track of them and not reroll, thus giving the PKs the benefit of having destroyed an enemy unit that would otherwise gang up on them, up to you. It likely doesn't matter much either way except by a remarkable coincidence.

In fact, the All-Knight Army (Uther & Anarchy Periods) on p. 93 implies that you should NOT use the unit destruction, since you only have 3 possible units, rather than the 20 a normal table has and with which the unit destruction was intended to be used. The same army table implies strongly, to me, that you would have multiple units of X type of knights. (Granted, I am not really a fan of those Army lists, as the weapon skills and damages listed do not fit that well with the individual enemies in the KAP 5.1. For instance, you'd expect many more mid-level knights rather than those high-skill, low damage (older) knights. I also would have preferred the All-Knight Army to use the full 1d20 range and make the equipment a Period-dependent variable; at the moment, you have 45% knights during Twilight using chain mails for crying out loud. But that is another discussion for another thread.)


Since I was rereading the book...

4. The example of having to attack a hated enemy appears under the Notable Passions. Reading the whole thing it implies that if your Passion is 16+, you will have to roll Prudent to suppress it, but if the Passion is not Notable, you can suppress it without a roll. Hence, I would say that Rules-As-Written implies that if you have Hate (Saxons) 15, you can act as you please, either attacking the Saxons or leaving them alone. This makes sense to me. Only Notable Traits/Passions force a PK to act in a certain way. Also, since almost all PKs have at least SOME Hate (Saxon) Passion, forcing them to always attack Saxons would be boring. Whereas differentiating the ones who really, really Hate Saxons is more interesting. By the way, I WOULD make a Notable Hate (Saxons) PK roll Prudent (or Loyalty, or Honor, whichever is highest) if the Leader does not go after the Saxons: the PK wants to kill some Saxons!

Good finds! :D

The "may keep track" can definitely be interpreted as a hard "may". Hm. I guess what confused me is how it is all included in the normal rules text, and an optional rule is shown in its own box with "optional" clearly marked. I wish this rule had also been in a box like that with the optional heading.

You're also right that such a rule would be difficult to use with the three knight army under the uther period.


Again, my 2 cents:

AsFall
"The bodyguard bonus phase is also step 5, after the entire melee step which is step 4. So lord Wolf could not have used the bodyguard bonus after one attack against him but before the next. The phrasing "...and the leader may attempt the melee
round again" would seem to indicate that all rolls are re-rolled, not just one, but the example says otherwise. Hm, this one isnt easy :P."

Me:
The rules also say that the leader can choose to use the bodyguard bonus either before of after his combat roll. Granted, I don't understand what is the purpose of using the bodyguards before knowing the results of the melee. However, this probably means that the decision is made during the melee phase, not after it, so the re-roll could conceivably only apply to some rolls.
In the example it makes sense to re-roll just one of the attacks, since it is reasonable that the bodyguards could only protect the leader from ONE threat, not all of them together.

True. Hm, though re-rolling them all might actually be a disadvantage for the PK, in the example the spearman (whom the PK did not allocate any of his skill towards) missed, and a re-roll would mean that he could hit instead. You could also see the bodyguards as throwing themselves into the fight generally, and thus affecting the result of it entirely, rather than targeting one enemy. Good discussion though! :)

A lot has been made much clearer, but there are a few issues where I think we could use Gregs input on what he intended. These would be;

2. What happens if the same enemy is rolled more than once on the army table when rolling multiple enemy choices?

3. How are destroyed enemy units handled? Is any dice showing their number re-rolled, or is such a dice counted as “no enemy” (i.e. if the player unit would be attacked by two and one of the two rolls would be a destroyed unit, would they simply be attacked by one?) (Due to wording and the, in other cases clear division into "optional" and not. Also; IF it is optional and IF you are using it, how does it work with "same unit rolled" and "destroyed unit rolled"?)

10. In the example on page 114, the bodyguard bonus is expressed as “lord wolf” (the player character) himself and his opponent both re-rolling (Interestingly, lord wolfs second opponent who missed doesn’t re-roll). Is this correct? Is the forced re-roll selective, or does it involve all the opponents of the leader? Do the other players re-roll as well? (Ambigous wording, very different effect depending on interpretation)

11. Is it correct that there is no longer any lower limit to the number of followers needed for a “bodyguard” action (page 66 does not mention a lower limit, but in the example with lord wolf it mentions “a minimum of five knights”) (contradictory, unclear)

15. If the Reckless attack option is used in a battle round, how are wins/losses calculated, since both attacks are unopposed and very likely to hit unless the reckless attacker is knocked down? (Can it be used, and if so, how is it countedm whether its the PK using it, or an enemy?)

17. The extended melee rounds rules specifically state that in rounds beyond the first the players fight “one opponent per player character” each round. How does that interact with having fought multiple units on the first round? Is one of them chosen at random as opponents for the round? (Some disagreement on interpretation)

Down to just six from nineteen, thats awesome! :D

Thanks everyone!

Me:
The rules also say that the leader can choose to use the bodyguard bonus either before of after his combat roll. Granted, I don't understand what is the purpose of using the bodyguards before knowing the results of the melee. However, this probably means that the decision is made during the melee phase, not after it, so the re-roll could conceivably only apply to some rolls.
In the example it makes sense to re-roll just one of the attacks, since it is reasonable that the bodyguards could only protect the leader from ONE threat, not all of them together.


I was reading this section and the example and I think it is obvious (in hindsight) that the example is probably referring to a different (older, presumably) version:
Rules (pp. 66 - 67): You need to have at least one knightly follower, and you lose 1d6 followers on a Bodyguard Win.
Example (p. 114): You need to have at least 6 knightly followers (implied, more than five) and you lose 2d6-4 followers on a Bodyguard Win.

In the Rules, it is referring to the Melee Round. However, this might simply be because the default is just fighting one enemy at a time. In the Example, Lord Wolf ignored the Spearman, so that might be the excuse why that combat was not rerolled: Lord Wolf never did roll against the Spearman in the first place.

Now, if it were me, I would GM it a bit differently from the rules. The Lord can yell his bodyguards to help in whichever fight (or even multiple enemies, but then the Bodyguards have to split the skill). However, that fight is NOT rerolled for the Lord, since he is not fighting that enemy after all, the Bodyguards are! Instead, he would not take any damage, but against that enemy, his efforts count as a Loss, since he had to back down and thus 'lose' his part of the melee, calling his bodyguards to rescue him.



AshFall:
"A prior discussion indicated that only reflexive modifiers are applied after the split. If that is the case, then the base weapon skill would be modified by -5 (for pulling back) and then split, after that split the +5 mounted modifier would be added to each of the split attacks. Does that make sense?"

Me:
I think it's a matter of GM's judgement. However, I would try to apply all modifiers together. What if a modifier would apply just to some opponents and not to others? This of course can be done ONLY after splitting. And I cannot be bothered to decide (and remember afterwards!) which ones happen before and which after the split.


The Pull Back penalty and the Withdraw bonus are a bit odd. However, they are explicitly said to influence the Combat Skill of the PK, so yes, I'd GM it as AshFall does. Note that while BoB2 is again cutting corners counts all modifiers together in p. 64, in the multiple opponents FAQ (p. 68), it is explicitly singled out that the mounted bonus applies AFTER the division. Since the Pull Back modifier is not mentioned at the same time, I'd say that it only impacts the PK's own skill BEFORE the division. (Yes, I can see how this argument is a it weak, since the battlefield obstacles should, by the same rule as the mounted, apply AFTER the division as well and they are not mentioned here. But they are an optional rule anyway.)

Dunno if this is helpful, but the way I run it (which I was pretty sure I got out of the book, but I could be wrong), getting the same result multiple times is the same unit; so if they got, say, a 3, a 9, and another 9, they only had 2 choices of battle enemies. If they got attack vs 2, but rolled the same battle enemy, then they get 2 attacks from the same unit (not split). If they get a Triumph against a Unit, I put a check next to it's name, if they get another in a future battle round, I put a line through the Unit. If they army has alternates, I will usually sub them in if that number comes up again. If not, then they get a reprieve from the battle; so if they got a destroyed unit as one of the results in attack vs 2, they only actually have to fight 1 unit.

Good finds! :D

The "may keep track" can definitely be interpreted as a hard "may". Hm. I guess what confused me is how it is all included in the normal rules text, and an optional rule is shown in its own box with "optional" clearly marked. I wish this rule had also been in a box like that with the optional heading.

You're also right that such a rule would be difficult to use with the three knight army under the uther period.



True. Hm, though re-rolling them all might actually be a disadvantage for the PK, in the example the spearman (whom the PK did not allocate any of his skill towards) missed, and a re-roll would mean that he could hit instead. You could also see the bodyguards as throwing themselves into the fight generally, and thus affecting the result of it entirely, rather than targeting one enemy. Good discussion though! :)

A lot has been made much clearer, but there are a few issues where I think we could use Gregs input on what he intended. These would be;

2. What happens if the same enemy is rolled more than once on the army table when rolling multiple enemy choices?

3. How are destroyed enemy units handled? Is any dice showing their number re-rolled, or is such a dice counted as “no enemy” (i.e. if the player unit would be attacked by two and one of the two rolls would be a destroyed unit, would they simply be attacked by one?) (Due to wording and the, in other cases clear division into "optional" and not. Also; IF it is optional and IF you are using it, how does it work with "same unit rolled" and "destroyed unit rolled"?)

10. In the example on page 114, the bodyguard bonus is expressed as “lord wolf” (the player character) himself and his opponent both re-rolling (Interestingly, lord wolfs second opponent who missed doesn’t re-roll). Is this correct? Is the forced re-roll selective, or does it involve all the opponents of the leader? Do the other players re-roll as well? (Ambigous wording, very different effect depending on interpretation)

11. Is it correct that there is no longer any lower limit to the number of followers needed for a “bodyguard” action (page 66 does not mention a lower limit, but in the example with lord wolf it mentions “a minimum of five knights”) (contradictory, unclear)

15. If the Reckless attack option is used in a battle round, how are wins/losses calculated, since both attacks are unopposed and very likely to hit unless the reckless attacker is knocked down? (Can it be used, and if so, how is it countedm whether its the PK using it, or an enemy?)

17. The extended melee rounds rules specifically state that in rounds beyond the first the players fight “one opponent per player character” each round. How does that interact with having fought multiple units on the first round? Is one of them chosen at random as opponents for the round? (Some disagreement on interpretation)

Down to just six from nineteen, thats awesome! :D

Thanks everyone!

Bumping these six questions, would be great to get some feedback regarding the intent of these rules, hopefully from Greg himself. :-).

Again, thank you for all your help guys!

Just my two denarii, repeating some of my earlier answers for completeness.

As a general guideline, it seems to me that the rules reference the DEFAULT, most common cases, such as fighting against just one opponent in the melee phase. There are many exceptions, some explicitly so.



A lot has been made much clearer, but there are a few issues where I think we could use Gregs input on what he intended. These would be;

2. What happens if the same enemy is rolled more than once on the army table when rolling multiple enemy choices?

3. How are destroyed enemy units handled? Is any dice showing their number re-rolled, or is such a dice counted as “no enemy” (i.e. if the player unit would be attacked by two and one of the two rolls would be a destroyed unit, would they simply be attacked by one?) (Due to wording and the, in other cases clear division into "optional" and not. Also; IF it is optional and IF you are using it, how does it work with "same unit rolled" and "destroyed unit rolled"?)


These are connected. Normally, I would not use the destroyed enemy units, so I could have multiples of the same type of unit, and thus:
2. Then there are two units of that type, which may limit the choice of the Player/GM.
3. It is simply another unit of the same type, carry on.

However, if I were using destroyed units, then I CANNOT have multiples of the same type, and thus:
2. & 3. I would be tempted in both cases NOT reroll, in order to give the PKs some benefit and break for achieving something. (This is probably in contradiction to what I said earlier, so sue me. :P On consideration, I think it gives the Players more of a feeling of making a difference in battle and hence a good thing.)



10. In the example on page 114, the bodyguard bonus is expressed as “lord wolf” (the player character) himself and his opponent both re-rolling (Interestingly, lord wolfs second opponent who missed doesn’t re-roll). Is this correct? Is the forced re-roll selective, or does it involve all the opponents of the leader? Do the other players re-roll as well? (Ambigous wording, very different effect depending on interpretation)

11. Is it correct that there is no longer any lower limit to the number of followers needed for a “bodyguard” action (page 66 does not mention a lower limit, but in the example with lord wolf it mentions “a minimum of five knights”) (contradictory, unclear)


Again, these are connected. My feeling is that the Example reflects an earlier draft which was not updated when the rules changed in the playtesting. This feeling is reinforced by all the errors in the example. Thus, the actual rules written should be the valid ones:
10. Roll the whole Melee Round again.
11. 1 follower is enough, 1d6 of them are lost on a win.

Of course, just to repeat my personal preference (not in the rules!) on 10.:
Now, if it were me, I would GM it a bit differently from the rules. The Lord can yell his bodyguards to help in whichever fight (or even multiple enemies, but then the Bodyguards have to split the skill). However, that fight is NOT rerolled for the Lord, since he is not fighting that enemy after all, the Bodyguards are! Instead, he would not take any damage, but against that enemy, his efforts count as a Loss, since he had to back down and thus 'lose' his part of the melee, calling his bodyguards to rescue him.



15. If the Reckless attack option is used in a battle round, how are wins/losses calculated, since both attacks are unopposed and very likely to hit unless the reckless attacker is knocked down? (Can it be used, and if so, how is it countedm whether its the PK using it, or an enemy?)


Repeating my earlier answer:
15. The Uncontrolled/Berserk attack option? Remember that the non-berserk attack hits first, and might knock the PK out of the saddle or wound him badly enough that the berserk attack never happens. This would be clearly a loss (as is the PK missing when the enemy hits). If both hit or miss, I'd consider it a draw (unfortunately, BoB 2 considers all draws to be wins, which is a fault of the system IMHO), and if just the PK hits, it is a win.

You could see it as a sort of anti-Defensive stance: You are almost guaranteed to take damage, but you have a higher chance of forcing a draw (hence a win) than via a normal fight, if your enemy is puny and you have high SIZ & Horsemanship. On a glance, it doesn't seem too overpowered, since you will have to survive the enemy's attack first. (Granted, we use +5 instead of +10 for uncontrolled attack, which nerfs it some.)



17. The extended melee rounds rules specifically state that in rounds beyond the first the players fight “one opponent per player character” each round. How does that interact with having fought multiple units on the first round? Is one of them chosen at random as opponents for the round? (Some disagreement on interpretation)


Repeating my earlier answer:
17. I admit, I would be tempted to have two enemies per PK in this case. If they had to fight whilst outnumbered in the regular round, I don't see why the extended melee would suddenly become 'easier'. Instead, I would take the comment of one opponent each to refer to the NORMAL case of fighting just against one unit to start with. Note that in the Fight an Enemy Leader -snippet (pp. 78 - 79), the number of opponents is 1 per PK PLUS any surviving fighters from the previous battle round (which I presume to mean those who won their opposed resolution), although I guess damage rolls and major wound thresholds might be used instead). In any case, this definitely shows that the "1 per PK" is simply the usual rule, rather than covering ALL cases.