I've run a handful of battles now, using the BoB and BoA. Overall I've been delighted with the new system and the "game-within-a-game" that arises. My group and I have been playing KAP since 3rd edition and that version of the ruleset still forms the mechanical backbone of our journey through the GPC (http://sacha3791.livejournal.com/. My players have observed (and I don't disagree with them) that the standard of opponents met on the battlefield is far higher (when using BoA) than in previous iterations of the game. I understand that this increase in difficulty is a feature rather than a flaw, but I wondered how other groups have reacted to this? Battles are certainly more deadly and thus more exciting, but I believe that players can feel that the deck of fortune is stacked against them before the battle begins. Even in a battle where the PKs army outnumbers and outclasses the opposing force, such is the puissance of some opponents in the army lists that every battle becomes a meat-grinder for PKs.

I reiterate my point that I'm not complaining here. I am simply interested in the experiences of other GMs and players.

Cheers,

Sacha

My group have come through two battles relatively unscathed; one being The Battle of Lincoln which is a real meat grinder. However, there was a huge element of luck involved. In said Battle of Lincoln, on the very first round, one of my PKs was about to take a crit (for 12d6 damage) when he managed to also roll a crit. He ended up seeing the battle out till the end.

My PKs also tend to use the Withdraw maneuver a hell of a lot. That +10 skill mod is a life saver.

Agree with your comment though. The opponents are statistically tougher especially with regard to damage. "Wotan's Men" from an attacking Saxon army for example do 7D6 damage, base; that's a lot of 20 SIZ+20 STR Saxons. Not that I have a problem with this as it could be seen as a synergistic effect; the stats reflecting a massed rank of such foes rather than an individual one.

In my experience (all major battles from 517-531 in PGC with the battle system) the Saxon list is really deadly; most of the others aren't. Saxon will kill PCs regularly, the other list's won't, barring weak stats, skills or extreme bad luck.

Also the battle system is the bane of young knight. They have died in droves in my campaign. Once a knight hits 20 in the holy trinity (horsemanship, sword, lance) battles tend to become far less dangerous. But the Saxon attacking list can kill just about anyone. Which I think is a Good Thing. Battles are serious things, after all, and any event that can lead to huge hauls of Glory should entail great risk.

Many thanks for the replies, chaps. The Saxon list does seem especially deadly. Interestingly though, to pick up on the point about the role of luck in battles, last night we played the battles of Levcomagus and Royston (Year 505) wherein two knights very nearly perished, whilst the other two walked away without a scratch. One of the near fatalities was the sole original player knight from 485, who now has 13,000 glory and excellent combat skills. He was brought low by a Badder Berserker rolling 16D6 damage on a critical. Frankly, I'm bloody impressed that he's still alive.

Oh yes, we also employ the Withdrawal maneuver a lot, too. ;D

I look forward to playing with some of the other lists in the BoA as a means of comparison.

Cheers,

Sacha