Topic: OBAM queeries
Started by: Aaron
Started on: 8/15/2003
Board: The Riddle of Steel
On 8/15/2003 at 7:14am, Aaron wrote:
OBAM queeries
Two quick queries for those who have access to OBAM
Firstly..I can't seem to find Puncture or thursting blunt damage tables for Back/Spine or Belly. but there is a 'non fatal' table, much like Flesh to the side form the original rules, that doesn't appear on the hit location chart.
I also can't fid a cutting attack chart to the inner thigh.
The second query is a rules question.
Lets say I have a character with a CP of 13. He has a sleeved chain shirt and no leg armour so he has no CP penalty.
he jumps on his destrier which has an AV 3 Caprison, CP & move penalty of 3, Greviere and Chanfron, both Cp and move penalty of 1. Gives the horse a moderate AV of 3 over most of its body and AV 5 face.
Sounds like pretty reasonable armour for a serious war horse.
Now come the bit I dont get
My CP of 13 is increased by 3 for the destrier =16 then subtract 3 for the Caprison, 1 for the Greviere and 1 for the Chanfron. For a total of 11.
My CP is actualy worse on the horse. My horses move starts at 12 and subtracts the 5 points for armour and now moves at 7. The same as my characters foot speed.
Does this mean that all things being equal, my character when attacking another character with the same stats and equipment is more likely to loose if he is mounted?
I understand that if I was wearing alot of heavy armoour I'd be better off on the horse but surely that isn't the only time it is worth being mounted..
Aaron
On 8/15/2003 at 7:40am, Brian Leybourne wrote:
Re: OBAM queeries
Aaron wrote: Firstly..I can't seem to find Puncture or thursting blunt damage tables for Back/Spine or Belly. but there is a 'non fatal' table, much like Flesh to the side form the original rules, that doesn't appear on the hit location chart.
I also can't fid a cutting attack chart to the inner thigh.
Hmm.. I'm not sure how that happened, but it's a matter of cut & pastes gone wrong I think :-) I'm astounded that Jake and I (and whoever edited the book after Jake) missed that. For Back/Spine use the upper ribcage and for Belly use the abs/lower ribcage entries.
Not everything in the tables will appear on the charts, as it's designed to allow you to make up your own hit location diagrams for whatever creatures you like. Originally, I was going to use that Non-Fatal for some thrust attacks, but didn't end up using them. They're there for anyone to use though.
There are certainly cutting attacks to the thigh. If it says "Inner Thigh" it means Thigh but the distinction is for Demi-Cuissart which only covers the Outer thigh.
Aaron wrote: Lets say I have a character with a CP of 13. He has a sleeved chain shirt and no leg armour so he has no CP penalty.
he jumps on his destrier which has an AV 3 Caprison, CP & move penalty of 3, Greviere and Chanfron, both Cp and move penalty of 1. Gives the horse a moderate AV of 3 over most of its body and AV 5 face.
Sounds like pretty reasonable armour for a serious war horse.
Now come the bit I dont get
My CP of 13 is increased by 3 for the destrier =16 then subtract 3 for the Caprison, 1 for the Greviere and 1 for the Chanfron. For a total of 11.
My CP is actualy worse on the horse. My horses move starts at 12 and subtracts the 5 points for armour and now moves at 7. The same as my characters foot speed.
Does this mean that all things being equal, my character when attacking another character with the same stats and equipment is more likely to loose if he is mounted?
I understand that if I was wearing alot of heavy armoour I'd be better off on the horse but surely that isn't the only time it is worth being mounted..
You want to throw that much armor on a horse and have him move about just as well as normal? Very odd :-)
Yes, it appears your CP is lower than your twin who is now on the ground. However, he has to get to you to be able to attack you. For a start, you can maneuver (i.e. terrain rolls) using your ride skill instead of using CP. This gives you an advantage in that you can keep him to your front where all he can attack is the horse (unless he has a very long weapon) which you have heavily armored, but you can do rearing or charging attacks to take him out using the horses strength rather easily. You can also keep initiative in your favor by making charges past him, ensuring you get to swing first unless he spends the dice to steal initiative (and only one exchange per round, also to your favor since you have initiative). Finally, he's limited in which parts of you he can reach to attack, while your best targets are his head, chest and shoulders - the most vulnerable parts.
Also, you can throw on heavy leg armor for free, which means his chances of hurting you are very slim, since your legs and lower body are all he can really hit (unless he out-maneuvers you very well, but that'll cost him CP and then he has fewer CP to attack you with, while you spent none trying out outmaneuver him since you used your ride skill instead.
Try it out. You'll find that it's not the disadvantage it appears.
Brian.
On 8/20/2003 at 8:36am, Aaron wrote:
RE: OBAM queeries
Thanks for the info on the locations Brian..
I still have a bit of a hard time excepting that a man on horseback, even armoured up, is less able to hit and deal damage, thats what a lowere CP pool means to me, as the same man on foot.
Your justifications were interesting though I have a problem seeing how the horseman can do a ride by atack when his horse moves no faster than the the man on foot.
As for the horse rearing. It's an interesting idea but i again I cant really see how you came up with the rules you did. Let me quickly explain. The destriere rears and kicks a TO 6 man in Full Plate, AV6, and obtains a margin of success of 1. the man takes a level 5 wound. Hmmm.. Almost makes you wonder why a horseman would bother to take a weapon. To do the same damage with a mass a strong, ST6 man would have to get a margin of 7 success. Thats using it in 2 hands and includes the bonus against hitting hard armour.
Aaron
On 8/20/2003 at 9:56am, Overdrive wrote:
RE: OBAM queeries
GURPS uses this system in which melee attacks deal damage by two means, swinging and thrusting. The base damage score of both are based on the combatant's strength attribute. Swinging base damage increases steadily with strength but thrusting doesn't (it's about half of swinging damage, perhaps less).
A normal human can punch ... pretty hard (thrust), but if he has a baseball bat, he'll do massive damage (swing). A huge guy will punch harder, but the normal guy with a baseball bat will still beat him pretty easily in dealing damage. A horse has the strength of 3-4 men but the thrusting damage is not very much higher than a normal man's (horses can't swing). In fact, a man with a sword will beat the horse in terms of raw damage. Well, something like that, I've not touched the books in 8 months.
This human-animal thing isn't represented well in TROS system, as Aaron pointed out. Someone asked if a bite by a Stalnish shire horse really does MoS+10 damage (or whatever). Perhaps the Stalnish knights should really push their horses to bite the enemy's heads off if this really was the case.
I should get my printed copy of OBAM in a few weeks but a sneak peek from my friend's PDF got me thinking. Wolves were listed as having like 13 CP dice.. enough for a lone wolf to beat a couple of peasants at the same time! Umm.. I know wolves can be tough when in pack but still. I thought the pack tactics were the key, not the über-stats of the individual animal.
On 8/20/2003 at 10:40am, Brian Leybourne wrote:
RE: OBAM queeries
Well, I'm certainly not in a position to get into a justification argument with you, so I'm going to pass. If you don't like the book, well, I think that's a shame.
I will say that I have personally experienced a man being kicked by a horse, and not only was he very very dead, but there wasn't much left of his chest.
Having said that, the damage horses can potentially deal was too high initially, but the changes didn't make it until the 2nd printing so 1st printing and (current) PDF will be errated.
Brian.
On 8/21/2003 at 2:37pm, Sneaky Git wrote:
RE: OBAM queeries
Brian Leybourne wrote: Having said that, the damage horses can potentially deal was too high initially, but the changes didn't make it until the 2nd printing so 1st printing and (current) PDF will be errated.
Brian.
When might this be happening?
Chris
On 8/21/2003 at 7:33pm, Brian Leybourne wrote:
RE: OBAM queeries
The changes were made in the 2nd printing (available next week). As for the PDF... well, unfortunately, I don't have access to edit and re-post that, so it'll have to wait until Jake gets back, but I will put together a listy of the changes. There aren't a lot, just a few here and there.
Brian.
On 8/23/2003 at 6:49pm, contracycle wrote:
RE: OBAM queeries
Point the first:
Foot eventually superceded cavalry, and not by accident. It is not just thenpikes thing either - you can get multiple people round something as big as a horse. Fully armoured Kataphraktoi style cavalry, while used, were indeed very slow.
Point the second:
Horse are HERBIVORES, not predators. Training a horse to bite peoples heads off would produce a mad horse. Even combat training as it was made them borderline psychotic if not actually psychotic. Under stress, a combat trained horse my see its rider as a predator on its back, too.