I just ran my first BoB session, the Battle of Lindsey vs Octa and Eosa. The relief is that it went smoothly and I didn't end up forever looking through the book for little rules here and there. I'm sure - in fact I know - I did some things wrong but they were minor and didn't affect the enjoyment/outcome. However, as always, actual play throws up issues which you don't expect so I'd appreciate some help on these points;

During one round of combat one of my knights was unhorsed, through a knockdown not a Major Wound, and I ruled that if he made his squire roll he could take his squire's horse instead of being left alone on foot. I did this partly because it seemed right but more because I was a little uncertain about what to do if he was left alone (+10 to his Unit Intensity I know but the whole bit about how he gets out/finds his unit/how battle works with just 1 combatant, I was very shaky about). Was that right? What if the guy comes off his horse on the very first charge, could you still use such a tactic then?

As it was a large battle my Battle Intensity started at 32, increased to 38 during play, and then fell back down to around 30. On my unit rolls I never once failed to Crit. Thankfully for them my PKs always managed a partial success. However, BoB says that any Unit Crit result means the PKs face a double attack (p.22 Battle Results). The page it refers to is p.45 but the only double attack I can find on that page describes Romans and their use of pilla. I had none of these units so never did that. Is that right?

On the fourth round of Battle my PKs had been pushed back till they were in zone 2 (out of battle), I assumed this meant they were automatically disengaged. They chose to remain so for another round (tending wounds etc) before wanting to charge back in. They failed in their Battle vs Intensity roll so instead they merely advanced forward. However, the advance move states you can move forward 1 or 2 zones and are disengaged at the end of it. Thus they missed another round as they moved forward. Is that right of should they have faced an opponent at the end of that round?

Tactics - All my PKs did was advance & withdraw. Even though they were new to the system they soon warmed to the relative safety that the +10 withdraw bonus gave them. In fact on the round that I mentioned above where they advanced into combat, on the very next round they chose to Withdraw. The other options were never really considered. They just wanted to stay alive.

Squires - Some of my PKs took prisoners and had their squires take them off the field. On one round, they also had to withdraw one zone which took them out of the battle. One PK asked if his squire would just withdraw with them (and the prisoner) out of the battle rather than having to roll the usual squire roll vs random opponent. I said no because these things don't always happen in sync. Does that sound right or too harsh?

Also on squires, the squire table on p.51 says that on a success, crit or failure the squire moves back one zone and is out of the battle. I don't quite get the relevance of moving back one zone. Surely if the squire is "Out of Battle" that's all that matters, why would the "move back one zone" be of any importance?

Rescue a Friend - p.52 If you try to rescue a friend but fail the initial Unit Commander Roll to see if he's nearby can you try again next round? Or is he then considered too far away?

Finally, my PKs chose to attack the enemy banner rather than the King himself when given the chance. Very luckily for my PKs, one of them critically inspired himself using his Hate Saxon passion and proceeded to mincemeat the enemy - no probs there. Afterwards, when I was dishing out Glory, they all moaned that 63 glory (250/4) seemed paltry considering they had just captured the enemy standard in one of the biggest battles of the time. Checking the conditions for glory awards in the book I'm inclined to agree. Should that be more like 250 each, or at least a 100 each?

I've run a handful of battles with the BoB rules and have started to acquire some degree of confidence with them.

Unhorsed knights - I think you're right to allow a Squire roll, with success resulting in the knight taking the squire's horse. I'd then rule that the suire legs-it to the back of the battle and can no longer be used by the knight. This highlights the value of maintaining several squires. I'd go with this ruling for the first charge, too.

Tactics - Our group discovered quickly the value of attack and withdrawal. I think that these maneuvers will constitute the most commonly employed tactics in any battle.

I believe that you can attempt to rescue a friend each round. The success or failure of the Unit Commander roll indicates whether you are sufficiently close to give assistance.

I'd say that the 250 Glory for capturing the banner should be divided amongst the number of knights involved in the action. It may be harsh, but it's also the reason for knights taking risks and going for glory single-handed.

Cheers,

Sacha

During one round of combat one of my knights was unhorsed, through a knockdown not a Major Wound, and I ruled that if he made his squire roll he could take his squire's horse instead of being left alone on foot. I did this partly because it seemed right but more because I was a little uncertain about what to do if he was left alone (+10 to his Unit Intensity I know but the whole bit about how he gets out/finds his unit/how battle works with just 1 combatant, I was very shaky about). Was that right? What if the guy comes off his horse on the very first charge, could you still use such a tactic then?

I think you were right,


As it was a large battle my Battle Intensity started at 32, increased to 38 during play, and then fell back down to around 30. On my unit rolls I never once failed to Crit. Thankfully for them my PKs always managed a partial success. However, BoB says that any Unit Crit result means the PKs face a double attack (p.22 Battle Results). The page it refers to is p.45 but the only double attack I can find on that page describes Romans and their use of pilla. I had none of these units so never did that. Is that right?

No. It's two different tings (and the reference to p 45 wrong). Double attacked means that the GM rolls three enemy units and that chooses two that attacks the PC unit, who will have to "stand vs two" or "withdraw (versus two)". Also, units can have two attacks to use in a single round of battle. This has nothing to do with the first part. A PC unit could be attacked by two units which two attacks each, for a very messy round ...


On the fourth round of Battle my PKs had been pushed back till they were in zone 2 (out of battle) I assumed this meant they were automatically disengaged.,

They are not, they have to fight normally. (I made this mistake myself, and Greg put that right in a thread below).


Tactics - All my PKs did was advance & withdraw. Even though they were new to the system they soon warmed to the relative safety that the +10 withdraw bonus gave them. In fact on the round that I mentioned above where they advanced into combat, on the very next round they chose to Withdraw. The other options were never really considered. They just wanted to stay alive.

In my experience, this is what you get in all those high intensity battle; it the best the PCs can do; it is about survival and lowering intensity a point or two makes little difference. But when you run smaller battles (intensity 15-20) other tactics, that change intensity and position and so forth becomes more interesting and viable. In that sense, its a pity that most battles have so high intensity. The system works best with smaller battles.


Rescue a Friend - p.52 If you try to rescue a friend but fail the initial Unit Commander Roll to see if he's nearby can you try again next round? Or is he then considered too far away?

Two far away.


Finally, my PKs chose to attack the enemy banner rather than the King himself when given the chance. Very luckily for my PKs, one of them critically inspired himself using his Hate Saxon passion and proceeded to mincemeat the enemy - no probs there. Afterwards, when I was dishing out Glory, they all moaned that 63 glory (250/4) seemed paltry considering they had just captured the enemy standard in one of the biggest battles of the time. Checking the conditions for glory awards in the book I'm inclined to agree. Should that be more like 250 each, or at least a 100 each?

I would give them 100 each, or so, that what they would have gotten for killing a dangerous monster or a large adventure and I think this situation would warrant an equal amount of glory.

As it was a large battle my Battle Intensity started at 32, increased to 38 during play, and then fell back down to around 30. On my unit rolls I never once failed to Crit. Thankfully for them my PKs always managed a partial success. However, BoB says that any Unit Crit result means the PKs face a double attack (p.22 Battle Results). The page it refers to is p.45 but the only double attack I can find on that page describes Romans and their use of pilla. I had none of these units so never did that. Is that right?

I believe under the latest BoB rules the battle size modifies unit intensity, not battle intensity. It makes no difference to your UI calculations, but it keeps your army from already being in a losing posture before combat even begins.

When the UI crits the PKs should face 2 enemy units during the round (and need to split their attacks). It's nasty.


On the fourth round of Battle my PKs had been pushed back till they were in zone 2 (out of battle), I assumed this meant they were automatically disengaged. They chose to remain so for another round (tending wounds etc) before wanting to charge back in. They failed in their Battle vs Intensity roll so instead they merely advanced forward. However, the advance move states you can move forward 1 or 2 zones and are disengaged at the end of it. Thus they missed another round as they moved forward. Is that right of should they have faced an opponent at the end of that round?

They're only disengaged if the combat results say so. Basically they got pushed back into the reserve line. They should have been fighting all of those rounds.


Squires - Some of my PKs took prisoners and had their squires take them off the field. On one round, they also had to withdraw one zone which took them out of the battle. One PK asked if his squire would just withdraw with them (and the prisoner) out of the battle rather than having to roll the usual squire roll vs random opponent. I said no because these things don't always happen in sync. Does that sound right or too harsh?

Did you guys actually fight an extended round to grab prisoners? I believe that's the only way to do so.

I think it would pretty tough for a squire to perform his duties while also managing a prisoner.



Finally, my PKs chose to attack the enemy banner rather than the King himself when given the chance. Very luckily for my PKs, one of them critically inspired himself using his Hate Saxon passion and proceeded to mincemeat the enemy - no probs there. Afterwards, when I was dishing out Glory, they all moaned that 63 glory (250/4) seemed paltry considering they had just captured the enemy standard in one of the biggest battles of the time. Checking the conditions for glory awards in the book I'm inclined to agree. Should that be more like 250 each, or at least a 100 each?


Whatever feels right for your game. My PKs each earned about 700 glory from the battle (x2 for size, x2 for decisive victory, and running down the stragglers at the end helped too), plus another 300 or so for the commander, so the banner glory didn't really stand out. Of course they got other rewards for that - extra spoils, and a manor for one of the knights.

Thanks for the help, guys.

I can see my players got off pretty lightly in this battle. Not using the "Unit was double attacked" was obviously a major let off. That does seem a harsh rule though as it's very hard for the UI not to Crit in a large battle. Still, I'll explain it away via some narrative contrivance and let them know it'll be tougher next time.

That does seem a harsh rule though as it's very hard for the UI not to Crit in a large battle.

Yup. A unit that drives forward into the thickest part of one of the bigger battles is almost certainly going to end up double-teamed. The unit either needs to be very good or quickly disengage themselves if they don't want to feature on the butcher's bill for the day. It's why people talk about the 'charge-withdraw-charge' cycle as pretty much being obligatory if you want to survive. The (risky) alternative to this is to try and punch through to the rear of the enemy's line where the UI mods start to go in your favour again.

Or you can get yourself assigned to the army's reserve so you only have to commit once the battle is won and lost...

Regards
Luke

Yeah, there are really only a limited number of effective tactics against a high Intensity battle.

Charge-Withdraw-Charge: Probabably the safest and easiest.

Charge-Push Deeper: A bit harder to pull off, but leads to more carnage and glory if you can get through the +10 ranks. Success sets the unit up to pull off some of the more effective maneuverrs. Failure tends to result in the unit being pushed back and broken like waves upon the shore.

Charge-Withdraw-Maneuver: Like the Charge Withdraw cycle, but the unit stays disengaged until it can get somewhere with a good UI mofier, the BI drops, or a good oppurtnity presents itself. This can be a very safe way to survive a tough battle, but doesn't yield a lot of glory unless the unit commander gets a good battle opportunity/surprise and can take advantage of it.

I have found the opportunity/surprise to be a bit of a surprise to the knights as well. In one battle, the players were doing well until they were given this opportunity, and then, really suffered some problems. Just be sure the players are aware of what the consequences are for each decision.

Bob

I have found the opportunity/surprise to be a bit of a surprise to the knights as well. In one battle, the players were doing well until they were given this opportunity, and then, really suffered some problems. Just be sure the players are aware of what the consequences are for each decision.

Bob


Yeah, I've seen that happen too. What often happens is that the PKs are trying to get/reamin disengaged to either set up for a charge or get first aid and regroup when the opportunity comes up and the PKs chase after some leader or exploit a weakened foe only to find themselves struck in the thick of things, low on hit points, horses, squires, and possibly split up.

In fact, it happened last session during the Battle of Saussey. THe PKs were in the Kill Zone, and facing a Unit INesity of 35 or so, and were planning to withdraw when the Unit Commander rolled a crtical and the GM (me) rolled a 1. HE rolled a 20 on the oppurtinity tablre and the group went off after the Roman Emperor. By the time the group managed to hack through the Emperior7s fiend bodyguards, the Emperor had fled, and the PKS had lost some horses and most of thier followers.

Next basttle round, they were banged up but couldn7t manage to withdraw successfully. THe group got more banged up and lost more followers, horses and squires before they finally managed to get disengaged. Then, another "opportunity" came upand the group got to attack a foe and ran into the "Last True Century" whose D and x2 abilities combined with 25 skill scores more than made up for the bonus the opportunity gave the PKs. It was brutal. The PKs got recoiled and then things got really bad for them.

So definately, warn the players that about the potential pitfalls of "opportunities."

I've found that using the battle rules for the Grand Melee at toruneys is a great way for the PKS to get "hands on" experience with the options from the BoB Battle System without suffering the full consequences.

In our group's experience, playing the BoB rules explicitly as written has turned out for the best. After six or seven battles under our belt we hit Anarchy. Its only now that we're starting to explore some of the finer details of warfare.

For example, one of the player knights is now the county marshal. We played a Clash size battle with the players in control of all command operations. As the armies got close the game morphed into something more like a hex and counter war game. The two sides jockeyed for tactical positions and then all-out screaming murder. Rule-wise it amounted to introducing terrain as written in BoB and a Battle roll for carrying out commands during encampment.

This is an awesome game!

Just be sure the players are aware of what the consequences are for each decision.



I am a mean GM and just let the players work it out themselves.
Or told them, "there is something in the rules about that," and let them look it up.

But Surprise is 50% good and 50% bad
Opportunity is not "opportunity to win"
Opportunity to try

But Surprise is 50% good and 50% bad
Opportunity is not "opportunity to win"
Opportunity to try



And Knights in the Romance phase yearn for the good 'ol days of Battle...

Bob

I am a mean GM and just let the players work it out themselves.


I think I need to be more mean with my players. I try to help them out with decent tactical advice (I figure that a PK with a 26 Battle skill would know a little more than the player, and have an inkling why an "all out attack" vs. 3 when disordered isn't such a great idea), they disagree, do what they want, and then complain about how unfair and impossible things are!

I am a mean GM and just let the players work it out themselves.

I think I need to be more mean with my players. I try to help them out with decent tactical advice (I figure that a PK with a 26 Battle skill would know a little more than the player, and have an inkling why an "all out attack" vs. 3 when disordered isn't such a great idea), they disagree, do what they want, and then complain about how unfair and impossible things are!


As long as you laugh loudly at their complaints,
and say nothing (maybe point at the rule book)
then I think that is mean enough. :D

Oh yea, you also have to tell them "Not until you know the system," when they suggest any modifications.

As long as you laugh loudly at their complaints,
and say nothing (maybe point at the rule book)
then I think that is mean enough. :D

Unforntuately what I think has happened is that as my players have gottren older they have gotten more bull headed. Case in point, last week one PK got surprised and had the oftion to run away or defend versus three. The player was too proud to flee and took the triple team, and got beaten badly. THe player sulked, and then felt that he was being picked on. He resued to accept that under the circumstances it would have been better to run than stand put and get his unit slaughtered.

Ten-fifteen years ago the player would have listen to at least one of the people who were telling him to run.









Oh yea, you also have to tell them "Not until you know the system," when they suggest any modifications.



Amen. Most of the things that the players want to change tend to be due to errors in how they percieve things rather than in the system itself.

Personally, I only have a few of things I'd like to change:

1) I think battle size and intensity should be a bit more distinct. As it stands now, thre PK's side tends to win the small battles and tend to loose the large ones. Bringing allies along can actually hurt you, since it will raise the Intensity!


2) I wish the "scripted battles" of the GPC were better tied into the BoB. In my campaign, going by the BoB, Arthur would have lost virtually all the major battles save Badon, which he wouldn't have won by noon of the first day.

I know you think that putting the event rollins for the battles is ridiculous, but I think it is the only way to make the scripted battles work out right. Otherwise the battles just seem to go on and on with the PKs suffering from an very high Intensity until someone "rushes out and kills the enemy leader", and the rout occurs. I think it actually give the players the wrong impression of the battle system, and gets them thinking they can throw a loosing battle with a lucky opportunity. I think GMs should probably not use the 3D6-10 roll for events but script the rolls, woth ups and downs, for the entire battle.



3) I don't like the fact that Knights who are "Alone" can't affect the Intensity. While I understand the reasons why, there are just too many examples of knights doing just that this in the GPC.

4) I don't like that the emeny commander can always ride away. It makes the opportunity a "non-opportunity". It would be differernt if a PK could take a double team and free up another PK, or a PK could ingore a foe to have a chance of getting to the commaqnder (maybe opposed Horsemanship rolls with the Commander getting +10?). Or maybe if a group cut through all the defensders very fast thery could get at the commander beforfe he could flee, but as it stands the commander can always get away.

Since killing the enemy commander is amlost the tradtional way to win the battle in the GPC, it should at least be possible in the BoB.

Personally, I only have a few of things I'd like to change:

1) I think battle size and intensity should be a bit more distinct. As it stands now, thre PK's side tends to win the small battles and tend to loose the large ones. Bringing allies along can actually hurt you, since it will raise the Intensity!


2) I wish the "scripted battles" of the GPC were better tied into the BoB. In my campaign, going by the BoB, Arthur would have lost virtually all the major battles save Badon, which he wouldn't have won by noon of the first day.

I know you think that putting the event rollins for the battles is ridiculous, but I think it is the only way to make the scripted battles work out right. Otherwise the battles just seem to go on and on with the PKs suffering from an very high Intensity until someone "rushes out and kills the enemy leader", and the rout occurs. I think it actually give the players the wrong impression of the battle system, and gets them thinking they can throw a loosing battle with a lucky opportunity. I think GMs should probably not use the 3D6-10 roll for events but script the rolls, woth ups and downs, for the entire battle.



3) I don't like the fact that Knights who are "Alone" can't affect the Intensity. While I understand the reasons why, there are just too many examples of knights doing just that this in the GPC.

4) I don't like that the emeny commander can always ride away. It makes the opportunity a "non-opportunity". It would be differernt if a PK could take a double team and free up another PK, or a PK could ingore a foe to have a chance of getting to the commaqnder (maybe opposed Horsemanship rolls with the Commander getting +10?). Or maybe if a group cut through all the defensders very fast thery could get at the commander beforfe he could flee, but as it stands the commander can always get away.

Since killing the enemy commander is amlost the tradtional way to win the battle in the GPC, it should at least be possible in the BoB.



Good points. My take:
1) The battle and unit intensity clarifications a couple of months ago at this forum really helped.
2) For scripted battles, I used a heavy modifier on the battle events. For example, with the Battle of St. Albans in 495 I subtracted the round # from the unit intensity roll (i.e. in the third battle round it was 3d6-13.) This cumulatively brought the battle to a perfect close. For non-GPC battles the dice decide as written in BoB.
3) The rules play out just fine.
4) Agreed. I force the player knights to fight through the guard a few rounds to reach the commander. I would imagine its possible to have the enemy commander retreat in the right situation; but, that situation hasn't yet occurred for us.

Personally, I only have a few of things I'd like to change:

1) I think battle size and intensity should be a bit more distinct. As it stands now, thre PK's side tends to win the small battles and tend to loose the large ones. Bringing allies along can actually hurt you, since it will raise the Intensity!


I believe this is addressed in the BoBATTLE 2nd ed that is being edited



2) I wish the "scripted battles" of the GPC were better tied into the BoB. In my campaign, going by the BoB, Arthur would have lost virtually all the major battles save Badon, which he wouldn't have won by noon of the first day.


Tell me if this is addressed in the BoBATTLE 2nd ed that is being edited



3) I don't like the fact that Knights who are "Alone" can't affect the Intensity. While I understand the reasons why, there are just too many examples of knights doing just that this in the GPC.


I'd love to see suggestions on how to work it out




4) I don't like that the emeny commander can always ride away. It makes the opportunity a "non-opportunity". It would be differernt if a PK could take a double team and free up another PK, or a PK could ingore a foe to have a chance of getting to the commaqnder (maybe opposed Horsemanship rolls with the Commander getting +10?). Or maybe if a group cut through all the defensders very fast thery could get at the commander beforfe he could flee, but as it stands the commander can always get away.

Since killing the enemy commander is almost the tradtional way to win the battle in the GPC, it should at least be possible in the BoB.



It probably ought to depend on the commander's attitude.
Suggestions always welcome

After all, these are improvements, not changes!

Oops, SOrry, I went into troubleshoot mode again. :-[

RE1 & 2: I eagerly away BoB 2nd edtion to see how they are addresed.


RE 3) One way would be to allow them to affect the battle, but just hlaf the intensity modfiers for thier unit results.Opporutnities and surprises could apply the full value since they reflect the crazy things that happen in a battle. For instance if a lone knight comes out of nowhere he could concievable kill the enemy kill and throw the battle.

THe idea of a lone knight inflectiling half the intesnity modfiers could be expanded to give each unit an Intentity modfier based on the number of men in the unit (or Knight Values). The unit factor would have to be adjusted by the size of the battle, too. Off the top of my head, I think basing it on the % of the forces in the unit (i.e. if you have 5% of the army in your unit you adjust the intensity by 5 on a win).. Intetisty adjustments could then be applied based on this "Unit Factor". For instance, a charge that wins might reduce the intisty by the Unit Factor, a Truimph by Unit Factor plus a value, or even 2x Unit Factor and so forth.Something like that would make followers a lot more useful, since they would allow a unit to have a greater effect on the battle.

RE 4)How about if the commander has to do somethinglike a "Run Away" maneuver, rolling Horsemandship vs. (40-Intensity) to get away? He could get a modfier,maybe equal to the number of guards still fighting the PKs. If he makes the roll he gets away, if he looses the PKs get to fight him. He could get to roll each melee round while the PKs are fighting his guard.

If would be cool if there was an intensity modfier for getting the enemy commander to flee. That way the commander might want to hang around so that his army won't' loose heart. It would also make the situation more satifiying to the PKs, who probably would have affected the intensity if they had done something else.

If would be cool if there was an intensity modfier for getting the enemy commander to flee. That way the commander might want to hang around so that his army won't' loose heart. It would also make the situation more satifiying to the PKs, who probably would have affected the intensity if they had done something else.


If the commander flees or falls, I have the foes within the enemy commander's unit make Valorous rolls to see if they keep fighting. Alternatively, they could choose to disengage and retreat. In either case I've adjusted battle events accordingly in the following round.

For example, the player knights of Hertford clashed with elite units from Essex in 497. Late in the battle they killed the Essex army commander after a suitably deadly combat. The next round I gave a -5 adjustment to the Battle Events roll (effectively 3d6-15.) It worked well.

In our group's experience, playing the BoB rules explicitly as written has turned out for the best. After six or seven battles under our belt we hit Anarchy. Its only now that we're starting to explore some of the finer details of warfare.

For example, one of the player knights is now the county marshal. We played a Clash size battle with the players in control of all command operations. As the armies got close the game morphed into something more like a hex and counter war game. The two sides jockeyed for tactical positions and then all-out screaming murder. Rule-wise it amounted to introducing terrain as written in BoB and a Battle roll for carrying out commands during encampment.

This is an awesome game!


Ewilde I just wanted to pick up on this because my players will soon be doing something similar. It sounds as if you had your PCs playing an off field style commander role, ie directing the battle from a nearby hill rather than being in the thick of it themselves. Although it may be rather anachronistic, it has got me thinking. How about offering a modifier to Battle skill (let's say +5) if the battle commander chooses to direct things from a vantage point away from the battle in return for having to make another roll for his orders to actually get through. That "other" roll could either be another battle roll or a squire roll of somesort. If the roll fails the unit can only Stand Fast as they have received no other order.