I can understand the CP penalties for thrusts to certain locations, but the swing modifiers have me confused.
If you swing attack the arms/hands, you gain +1 CP.
Swing attacks to the lower legs v. shields also +1CP.

(Note: does that last one mean that you get the bonus while attacking the lower legs only if the opponent has a shield, or does it mean +1 CP for attacking lower legs, and +1 CP for attacking the shield?)

It seems strange to me that the arms and especially the lower legs would be an easier target than, say, the body. Why is this?

----------------------------------------
Darren

Darren: "Sometimes I just like to sit and think up combat questions."
Jake: "Nothing good can come from that."

I can't say for the lower legs, but I CAN say for the arms.

In many types of swordfighting, particularly in duels, the arms were the places where the most injuries occur. Think about it this way: while you are using your arms to swing at them, so are they, and their arms therefore become the closest thing to your attempted blows.

hence, historically, more injuries occured to the arms than anywhere else.

Hi Darren,

Also some styles focus on striking the arms as the "source of danger". You take out that which holds the weapon, and safer off your are. Range-wise, it's also easier to hit the hand, wrist or forearm, especially if you have a shorter weapons. Finally, if you are blocking or countering, the opponent's arms are extended and and many counters are simply about going for that quick, easy cut.

Vs. Shields, I suspect it is because a person may not be able to see the low blow coming into their legs, but you'll have to ask someone more familiar with the style.

chris

I believe the justification for the ease of hitting the arms is thus:

1. Hands/arms

1a) Take a horizontal swing at someone's torso, arms straight at their sides. Chances are you'll hit them in the arm, not the chest first. Now I know no one fights like this, but the justification remains

1b) Arms and hands tend to be extended out from the body while fighting in most styles. Makes them easier to hit, regardless of the fact that they are moving. There is a very nice attack out of Tallhoffer that involves bring a blade straight up as the opponent makes a descending cut to the head. You don't get a lot of power off of the attack, but the force of the opponent striking down does most of the work for you.

2. Strikes vs. Legs When There's a Shield

1b. The CP bonus only applies a +1 when the opponent has a shield AND it is a strike to the lower leg.

2b. It is harder to move fast when carrying a shield. There is more weight that has to be over the body, and the balance is subtly different. This means things like leaping out of the way of a sword strike are a little less likely. Also, it is harder to get that leg up out of the way, though certain agile fighters have been known to lift the lead leg and foot up, completely protecting it with the shield. Also gives a good reaon for getting decent armor for your legs.

Hope that helps.

Yeah, these guys are right.

Historical wound records bear out that cuts and bashes almost always land on the head, arms, and legs. In the corpses from the battle of Wisby (sometimes spelled Visby) over 70% of the dead had some kind of leg damage that was visible on their bones at the time of excavation. One poor sap even lost both legs to one blow!

The body is actually the hardest part of the body to hit with a swung weapon, despite what most games tell us. ;-)

For further info check out the aforementioned historical manuals (www.thearma.org, www.scheilhau.org), watch epee and saber fencing, watch escrima or some other stick fighting, or try to hit your friends with sticks (padded ones are good...or not).

Jake

I hear what people are saying, and I don't dispute the goals. But I'm wondering if a CP bonus is the best way to achieve it.
As ever, I'm not sure, but the way I'm thinking at the moment is:

For the shield and lower leg, since it is harder to defend, I think that could have been a 1CP activation cost to the defence roll, rather than a bonus to attack. (If the victim is unable or unwilling to defend, he's no worse off.)

Since arm hits are more common, and can occur even when you attack other locations, then I'm currently thinking my preferred solution would have been to modify the d6 location rolls. So you might have, for instance:
Zone V: roll 6: your downward strike to the head meets a hastily thrown up arm, roll on zone 7 (arms) instead.
This is more complicated, since it would require a chance to many tables. The easist solution will be to stick with the official rules and if it does encourage the players to go for arm hits, it will reproduce those battlefield proportions. Decisions, decisions....

I like your shield solution, but the arm thing I'm going to hold to. They really are easy to hit on purpose. Very easy.

Jake

Admittedly I don't have the game yet, I've only been fiddling around with the combat simulator, but I think any sort of bonus to hit the legs is a bit much. As it is, I find myself striking for the legs all the time when someone has a shield, simply because if you swing for anything even vaguely midsection-ish you run the risk of hitting the shield passively and having its armour value subtracted. Even without a bonus there is a naturally very strong tendency to swing for the lower legs not because there is a bonus for doing so, but because the other option is so bad. Giving an extra CP for doing so is just reinforcing a tendency which is already present. Dump the +1 CP. Everyone will still swing for the legs.

Thanks Jake, I'll use my shield rule and your arms rule. I thik it would still be nice to have some sort of "accidental arm hit" rule, but I can live without it.

Piers: don't worry about the hit location modifiers. They are presented as optional so you don't have to use them.

I like the bonus to hitting lower legs on a shieldman, personally. As a fighter in the SCA, I've faced many, many shieldmen, as it's considered the easiest style to learn, and the most useful for the unskilled (any newb can stand in a shieldwall, after all...) Fact is, the lower legs are very easy to hit. Exceptionally. As a matter of fact, it's so easy that I've done so many times entirely on accident.

Only problem is, in the SCA, due to the fact that it is a sport/hobby, the lower legs and knees have been declared as illegal hits, due to the possibly devastating nature of a solid hit there. The lower leg is made up of two smaller bones, and might be more likely to break, but also a hit there is more likely to unbalance a fighter, or cause them to twist their knee, all of which can result in real-world injury.

Now, before anyone can attribute the ease of hitting them to the fact that it's not a strike which will "kill" a fighter, I'll add this: due to it being an illegal hit, many fighters do not wear lower leg armor, thus making it much more painful. They'll move them, trust me.

I disagree with the solution of making it harder to defend, because a shieldman who thinks about his lower legs will be able to easily defend, simply by dropping his shield and stepping back a bit. I am uncertain why, with this being the case, it's still so easy to hit them, but it remains true.

But we must all do as we feel necessary, of course. ::smiles::

You've almost won me over. I can accept the ease of hitting the legs (though again, I think accidental strikes in those areas should really have been handled with the hit location rolls).
Also, if the shield user who knows what he is doing can easily defend, maybe there shouldn't be a modifier at all. Hmm...

I'm going off of the historical wound record. If the legs were such a common target, there needs to be a mechanical motivation for that to continue in TROS.

Note also that both the Greeks and Romans carried helmets, shields, and greaves (leg armor) before chest armor (though that followed shortly after). Interesting...

Jake

Jake Norwood wrote: I'm going off of the historical wound record. If the legs were such a common target, there needs to be a mechanical motivation for that to continue in TROS.

Note also that both the Greeks and Romans carried helmets, shields, and greaves (leg armor) before chest armor (though that followed shortly after). Interesting...

Jake

I'm most sure that it was by design. Most of my bruises are on my arms and legs.

Jake

One good reason not to drop the shield is because it exposes the head (time to heads back to the feinting thread). It's not an easy thing to judge where a swing is going to actually end up having to do with the fact that a cut threatens a wider area as opposed to a thrust which threatens a deeper area. Your opponent brings the arm back to swing, you are already trying to judge its trajectory. What's worse, a good swordsman (esp. with weapons like the cut and thrust) will keep the weapon moving what with the laws of inertia applying and all. If they strike the head or torso area repeatedly, the opponent is going to expect the attack to come to the same place and miss parrying the attack that dips the tip of the weapon into the leg. An effective attack that I've used in the past is a double cut, both low, one to the left followed immediately by one to the right. Not easy to defend and even experienced fighters are not going to expect it.

Also, when using a medium shield that only covers the torso and top of the thigh, fighting with it dropped to cover the lower leg does not lead to any sort of effective riposte or counter.

There is also the fact that wounding an opponent to the point where they cannot fight can be more effective than trying to actually kill them. If someone suddenly can't stand, they are not going to be able to fight.

I hjad a point in here somewhere... I think. Bah.

That reminds me of something I was wondering about.. Anyone have any sort of house rules about where it's not feasible to defend with a shield/off-hand weapon?

It is possible, but not particularly easy, to block with a small-medium shield an attack aimed at the sword-side shoulder. It is more difficult to block the lower legs than the torso. And better yet, it is even more difficult to drop the shield to defend the legs on one exchange, then raise it quickly enough to defend the head on the next.

Anyone have anything that deals with this?

Okay, Jake, you can tell me to shut up ant any time...

Okay, some background for my answer.

I have yet to learn the Sword & Buckler/Shield, but it is coming up soon and I am getting ready for it by reading certain publications like "Medievel Swordsmanship" by Clements and looking up I.33 to see what it can offer. I add in a little of what I am learning from my instructor and I have come up with a pretty good idea of why shield users were in trouble in regards to their legs. With a sword & shield you have some minor vision limitations as well as having to address the opponents use of their weapon. In my training I have found that I can really mess up a shield user by attacking from Nebbenhut (Sword tip pointing back with the hilt at my right hip) with an unterhau (a blow from underneath). They can't see it coming and when I begin to move they always think I am going to come up and over, as it is the most, err, "natural" movement. Before they can react to it, the sword is in there, under their field of vision. When you can't see it you're dead. This is a truth of Western Martial Arts. If they wanted to, they could crouch and shield their legs, but this opens them up for the strike (cut or thrust) to the sword arm, head, shield shoulder...

So I am thinking that one of the reasons Jake gives the Aggressor a +1CP bonus to hitting the legs is because of time. It takes time for the other guy to get his shield down to guard his legs. This gives the aggressor the advantage of your being slowed down. I think the bonus of +1CP to the aggressor's attack best reflects the situation.