about aiming at unarmored parts of body

[chade0]

Hello,

I fought a test duel with two equal knights. Both were wearing a helmet and a full chain suit which covers all zones excepts head and lower legs. Both fighter had longswords.

So, as every zone except lower legs were covered, both knights attacked almost all the time for each others lower legs, since even though legs are not as vulnerable as head or chest, a good hit at them is enough for a victory. (sorry for my bad language, I'm Finnish)

Ok, what I wanted to know is that were historical fights really like this? Two duelists aiming at each others lower legs all the time? Shouldn't armor give the defender some kind of passive bonus too?


that's all :)

[Salamander]

Hello,

I fought a test duel with two equal knights. Both were wearing a helmet and a full chain suit which covers all zones excepts head and lower legs. Both fighter had longswords.

So, as every zone except lower legs were covered, both knights attacked almost all the time for each others lower legs, since even though legs are not as vulnerable as head or chest, a good hit at them is enough for a victory. (sorry for my bad language, I'm Finnish)

Ok, what I wanted to know is that were historical fights really like this? Two duelists aiming at each others lower legs all the time? Shouldn't armor give the defender some kind of passive bonus too?


that's all :)

Hi chade0, welcome to The Forge!

A little about me before we get too far. I am a scholar of the longsword at this place...

//www.swordacademy.com

We study renaissance and medievel combat forms.

Now, during my training I have found that seven or eight times out of ten, the injuries incurred will be to extremities, such as arms and legs. Looking at the fact that we are talking about two men wielding longswords, they are not messing around. They mean to kill each other. If that means taking a leg and then finishing the guy off at thier leisure, then so be it. Basically, we are trained to do whatever it takes to defeat ("kill") your oponnent. And those guys back then REALLY knew how to do that.

[Caz]

It stands to reason, past or present, that if that's the most vulnerable opening, that's where most attacks will be directed.  But when that's happening, it wouldn't be unreasonable to add a couple of dice to their defense against that particular attack, because they know it's coming.
   Don't forget about wrestling, half swording, and dagger work when all that armour comes into play.  Feinting too if there's that opening.
   Also, a duel means they have the time to attack that major opening, in  a larger combat, they may not have the room to attack the lower legs, or the time, there'd probably be a lot more furious halfsword thrusting to each other faces/joints.  
   Armours passive defense is that it sits there covering your body.  If it's struck, it protects, if it isn't it does not.  It's all cosmetic on the part of the GM whether you say it absorbed, deflected, or just managed to stop an attack.  Armour doesn't passively defend unarmoured parts of the body.

[Brian Leybourne]

For reference, you might like to check out this thread, where we had a discussion very similar to this one a couple of months ago.

Brian.

[contracycle]

My concern with this is that it presupposes freedom to choose.  Most combatants fought battles rather than duels, and therefore took opportunities to strike as they arose, and I don't think they often had the whole targets body to choose from freely.  So, it does not ring true for me either; but I don't think a mechanised solution is likely to be usefully elegant.

[Brian Leybourne]

Then it comes down to play style. As Seneschal, I often have less combat experienced opponents repeatedly attacking the centre of mass or swinging wildly, not caring where the armor is because they don't have the nounce to have that kind of precision in combat. Well experienced foes will look for the less armored spots and attack there.

Brian.

[Valamir]

I personally strongly recommend an escalating penalty just like repeated Feints.

If a Feint is a trick that your opponent will catch on to and work to avoid (thereby assigning a cost); than attacking the same location over and over (location being broadly defined like "the legs") is also a trick that your opponent will catch on to and work to avoid.

[Snikwas]

I like Valamir's solution. I'd play fairlly loose with the rules. Not just attacking the same location, but if any sort of pattern is followed with attacking locations (eg Head -  Legs - Head - Legs). The Seneschal would have to decide whenever to apply the penalties.

On the flipside, you might allow Feints to be more successful when the defender is beginning to predict where an attack might come. Just a thought.

[Salamander]

I personally strongly recommend an escalating penalty just like repeated Feints.

If a Feint is a trick that your opponent will catch on to and work to avoid (thereby assigning a cost); than attacking the same location over and over (location being broadly defined like "the legs") is also a trick that your opponent will catch on to and work to avoid.

That is why the grapple and throw are so handy. You may not kill him, but it is just like that first cut.

[MonkeyWrench]

I think an easy way to handle it is to limit the locations available to hit.

Take this for example: Two fighters are dueling, one weilds an arming sword and a heater shield, the other a greatsword. Obviously the greatsword weilder has very few choices when it comes to hit locations as the large shield covers most everything other than the head and lower legs. On the other hand the shield bearer can pretty much choose where he wants to hit.

Of course then again I may be just stating the obvious.

What I'd like to know is how do fellow Seneschals handle what locations are available to strike?

[contracycle]

Theres a show on the UK channels at the mo called Time Commanders, using the engine of the forthcoming Rome: Total War game to restage famous historical battles - Wattling Street, Mons Graupius etc.  They have a couple of experts from RMA Sandhurst to provide commentary, and one said an interesting thing last week: that the celts long swords could be used in such a way to use the enemies shield against them.  By staying slightly out of range and making shallow cuts over the top of the shield - threatening the head - the long-sword wielder can force the shield-wielder to keep their head down (making them blind) and tying up their striking weapon.  I thought that was an interesting perspective; not sure how you would represent that in TROS exactly, though...

[Caz]

I disagree with that, a properly used shield, when defending, won't blind the user or tie up the weapon.  Though an improperly used one, or used by someone unexperienced, often will.
    Besides, the romans had some pretty good helmets hehe

[Salamander]

I disagree with that, a properly used shield, when defending, won't blind the user or tie up the weapon.  Though an improperly used one, or used by someone unexperienced, often will.
    Besides, the romans had some pretty good helmets hehe

*Spitting on hands & picking up celtic longswerd*

Okay, put on your Roman helmet. I wanna ring the bell.

[Jaeger]

Chade0's questions: with answers.

"Ok, what I wanted to know is that were historical fights really like this? Two duelists aiming at each others lower legs all the time?"

A: If the lower legs are the only unarmored areas, Yes. you simply do more damage hitting the unarmored area, which makes it the quickest road to victory.

"Shouldn't armor give the defender some kind of passive bonus too?"

A: It does: the AV value that protects you from damage when you get hit. No bonus to unarmored areas, well, because they're unarmored. Armor has virtually no bearing on weather or not you get hit - it just affects the damage if you do get hit.

 This has come up before when people switch to TROS from other game systems. In most other game systems armor gives an overall passive bonus because they don't used called shots to determine where you hit. So you typically roll againts some type of defensive bonus or armor class to determine wether or not you struck an area that the armor didn't cover.

With TROS all attacks are called shots. So you can deliberatly aim where the armor doesn't protect. And conversly you can cover yourself with armor to take options away from your opponent. That's why a man in full plate is such a dangerous opponent. You HAVE to go through his armor to get to him.

Luckily I responded before Ashren chose to, and confused you with the incoherent, infantile babbelings of a monkey with downs syndrome.

[Richard_Strey]

"Ok, what I wanted to know is that were historical fights really like this? Two duelists aiming at each others lower legs all the time?"

Actually, TROS does *not* take into account that the distance from your shoulder to the opponent's head is shorter than from shoulder to leg. Same goes the other way around. Given the same reach, this means that anyone trying to hit the other in the legs will most likely get a headshot himself while his target evades. This might change according to armor worn, but it should not be overlooked.
In my games, all hits to the lower legs are at -1 CP.