I think there was a rule that established the chances that a knight's horse is wounded instead of him when attacked. For example, when a mounted knight is attacked by an archer, what are the chances that the horse is hit instead? Then, what if a fanatical berserker wants to attack a mounted knight, is there a chance the horse is hit?

I'm sure it's written somewhere in the book, but I can't find the rule. Could somebody help me on this?

Thanks!

All right, I just found something in the Battle System appendix. It states that archers shooting at mounted knights hit the horse on any odd damage roll.

I guess this could also be used for any ennemy that doesn't care about hitting the guy or the horse (like a saxon berserker).

I suppose you could use that, but I think it's mainly for mass battle situations where you might not be attacking a specific enemy, but "that group over there."

In normal melee, the attacker just says whether he wants to hit the rider or the horse. The rider rolls his attack normally, and if the attacker wins, he hits the one he chose as target.

Yeah, in melee one usually has a pretty good idea of where his sword, axe or spearpoint is going to end up. So hitting a horse is almost always a deliberate choice.


It does mention in the books that a knight can break up his skill to defens his horse.

It's not a bad combat tactic for Picts, Sacons, Peasants or Footmen to attack the mount and hope to get the knight on foot, where he will hopefully be easier to deal with. Just don't expect much mercy should things turn out differntly than planned. Killing, or even injurig a horse is like take 2 or more years income away from him. It's hard to forgive someone when you just got that Friesian Charger last year.

I know in the movies and a lot of fictional books they take the horse out first, but I am still not sure how easy that is.

Psychologically your going to fight and defend against the foe who is attack you, so you got some tart in armour raining blows down on you, the horse prancing about and also I can't imagine it's easy to get a killing blow on a horse, wound it yeah, but drop it to its knees?

Also history speaks for itself cavalry has always been damn effective, so it can’t have been that easy to get a man of his horse.

Unless you get really bogged down and are outnumbered and even then I would guess they are more likely to try and drag you off your mount. The mounts worth a lot of money you know and I would guess a horse thrashing and kicking about in its death throes could be very dangerous in itself.

I know in the movies and a lot of fictional books they take the horse out first, but I am still not sure how easy that is.

Its probably not hard, its just that its not done. Horses are valuable, extremely so; like gentry, they are looked upon as "potential treasure gained", not targets of opportunity in war.

Yeah, killing horses is relatively easy. Unlike Knights, they are not heavily armored, or able to wield weapons. One problem that would exist is keeping the horse from running off after it's been hurt.

And while Cavlary were always effective, this was in large part due to their mobility. Calvary would hit, disengage, maneuver, and then hit from another direction. If the stayed in one place, they were not any better than equivalently armed and armored footmen. In some cases, not even as good as footmen.

Heavy Calvary also had the advantage of the lance charge, allowing a knight to hit harder than a modern .50 caliber bullet. But again, that requires mobility.


The reason why horses aren't targeted more is because the tactic is frowned upon. In Feudal Japan horses were considered fair targets and it eventually led to a "knight" class that wasn't mounted. Ironic considering the samurai were originally noted for being horse archers.

In Pendragon's Europe, the knights are more protective of their status as mounted warriors, and are probably more careful about killing off the horses. In the game, even a horse that is just hurt can be ruined as a warhorse.

I agree with what you’re saying, it’s just that
it’s not done and
tactic is frowned upon surely wouldn't count for one of the main foes in Pendragon Saxons.

In theory they are going to go for your horse a lot of the time wouldn't you say?

I agree with what you’re saying, it’s just that
it’s not done and
tactic is frowned upon surely wouldn't count for one of the main foes in Pendragon Saxons.

In theory they are going to go for your horse a lot of the time wouldn't you say?



I would say yes, probably.
Just remember that even if he strikes the knight's horse, the knight's combat win would protect the horse. He does not have to specify he is protecting his horse.

Would you mean there are a contest roll when an ennemy wants to attack the horse ?

I believe there are two unopposed attack, first the attack to the horse and secondly the attack of the rider !

Would you mean there are a contest roll when an ennemy wants to attack the horse ?

I believe there are two unopposed attack, first the attack to the horse and secondly the attack of the rider !

Nope.

If remember it right, the horse is part of the rider, so the single saxon on foot attacking the horse would have an opposed roll with the rider of the horse. Now mind you attacking the horse is good tactics anyway because the saxon don't get the reflexive -5 for attacking the mounted person. But the rider still gets his +5 because of the "height advantage".
But when this plays out it is usually multiple saxons on foot vs one rider, so the knight have some tough choices to make if he truly wish to defend his horse against them all.

Yeah, especially if several Saxons do an all out attack on the horse. The knight might drop one or two, but odds are the horse is going to get a major wound or killed. But, if the GM makes a habit of this sort of tactic, those knight who survive will go broke from all the replacement horses.

Plus, if the GM is role-playing the Saxons properly, most won't want to sacrifice themselves to take down a horse.

I think the real "terror tactic" is using missile fire on the horses. They are a big target, and usually have little armor, so those 2D6 and 3D6 rolls actually inflict damage. A couple of volleys from 3 Saxons or so can probably take out the horse long before the rider can get close enough to charge.

But again, if the GM makes regular use of such tactics, he will ultimately derail the game. And once the players see that they can't keep up with the horses, they will give up on them.

I don't know, I think the game could survive that tactic. Later on in the campaign, barding is around, so those 2d6 and 3d6 damage rolls won't have much effect. Even without armour, they aren't often going to cause major wounds (chargers have 5 natural armour and CON 15) - it's really only critical hits they have to worry about from ranged attacks.
Early on, the knights do get ransoms and horses from knights they've defeated.

Plus, household knights are supported by the liege - it's the liege who replaces the horse. So it's just another expense landed knights have to face, and their manor(s), plus ransoms and loot, should cope.

When I play conquest-era and earlier, I don't hold back from having non-knightly opponents go for the horse. They don't do it exclusively, but whenever knights are outnumbered by foot foes, I usually have one of them go for the horse. I haven't actually killed many horses that way though - horses are tough, and most opponents can't guarantee they'll hit even on an unopposed roll. Often, foot opponents have a better chance of taking the rider down to ground level by hitting him directly instead of his horse.

Horses do get taken out though - but unless they are special or magical horses, they are relatively easily replaced.