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 :)

chade0 wrote: 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 :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Valamir wrote: 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.

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?

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...

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

Caz wrote: 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

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.

"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.

from what superficial (a word with special meaning to jaeger) research I have done, most duels (in france at least) were done without armor. Ofcourse the time period I read up on was already into hand guns so that may have been a bit to do with it but swords were still used. Anyways, to answer your question apply this fun thing called common sense, (Jaeger surprised me by actually using a bit himself, probably stolen) what woudl you swing at against some foe, his armored breastplate or that arm with no armor? Shouldn't take you too long to figure out which will give you a better chance, of course some might lead you to believe that duels went for quite a while, and thus swinging at unarmored parts gets predictable. Well, most fights don't seem to last that long from what I read. Some one usually gets jacked up pretty fast it seems. If I remember correctly, the rapier was thought by george silver to be too lethal as it tended to kill to often in duels ... anyways. Besides that all I have to contribute to this discussion is ignore jaeger, he ltends to pull his info from the wrong orifice, in other words I wouldn't want to shake his hand

*Comes running with a bucket of water*
Easy on the flames, guys! Doesn't make either of you sound more convincing, you know. That being said, I do think that combat in a duel is a different beast than, say, an ambush or battle. The fact that you have exactly one opponent and all the time you want gives you the opportunity to a "camper" mentality. Wait for exactly the right moment to strike and then do that with all you got. Until then, you can be *very* cautious. When being ambushed or in some other wild fight, you have to strike at the first possible opening, because you have to gain the upper hand before someone else does and jumps you from the side.

Duels were indeed often unarmored (I'm going to butcher the spelling, but the term is something like "en plaissance"), which certainly affected fighting technique. I think there is some good evidence that leg hits were not at all favored historically. As Richard points out, they're farther away from you much of the time, since you're swinging form the shoulders of course. Often you have the choice to go for legs or for the upper body, and the latter seems to have been the prefered target historically (at least in what I have seen). Besides range, there is another good reason for this: even if a blow to the head (or even torso maybe) isn't injuring, it's still quite a distraction, and one that might well lead to victory.

In reality of course, you have only a split second to decide where you're going for, and this decision is not free either: you decide based on where your weapon presently is, what position your body is in, what your oponent is doing with his blade and body, and also vulnerability of the target area...lots of things to consider. TRoS has (by necessity) simplified this decision making process a lot.

In general, while TRoS combat has a really good feel behind it, and is tactically interesting, making extrapolations from it to the real world is rather dubious. (As is, I might mention, making assertions about how the Celts and Romans fought -- in terms of actual technique -- since we have no documentation of that whatsoever.) No one was necessarily doing that here, I realise; just a word of caution.

Cheers.

actually I just remembered a duel in france with sword and buckler that ended from strikes to the unarmored legs. It was considered a cheap shot and the name coup de Jarnac evolved from the combatant who pulled it off (he sliced the guys legs apart and thus caused him to bleed to death.)

Not to be too snotty, but the coup de Jarnac was not considered a dirty move at all. That is a common myth about the duel. The strike was a slash across the back of the calf, and was considered quite legal. Most historians consider the duel to be a very gentlemanly one- the only outstanding facet of this duel was that Jarnac was clearly the underdog in the duel, and was not expected to win.

The coup de Jarnac did come to mean "a cheap shot" or "low blow", but it is like many historical sayings a misnomer. Also, Jarnac's opponent did not die from the wound, but was so ashamed by the defeat that he asked Jarnac to kill him. Jarnac did not, and some sources say that despite their grievances the two eventually became friends again. There is a link to a historical society on the TROS main page, I'm sure they have an account of the duel, considered to be one of the most famous (or infamous) in France's history.

Akora

If you want to know more, check out this at the ARMA Site. An interesting read, for sure.

As for leg-shots: After considerable sparring during Langschwert (longsword) practice in the last three years, I have come to the following conclusion (which is subject to change while I learn, but still): Given a capable opponent and same reach, any attack to the (lower) legs that is not made to specifically make use of a weakness on the opponent's part spells doom for you. The other guy will slip back just enough to make you miss and you'll get hit in the upper openings. Like, 95% of the time. Thus, I do not believe a hit anywhere near the knees or below to be a serious threat if you are vigilant. Is is an ever-present danger, though. Focus too much on the upper body and you *will* have a problem, especially if the opponent uses techniques like Geisseln to improve his reach.

Examples:
A and B are duelling. A few cautious blows are traded and A stikes to the legs. B slips back just enough for A to miss and nails him with a Scheitelhau (vertical blow to the head with stretched out arms and hands held high). Game over.

A' and B are duelling. A' advances forcefully and lands a series of blows onto B's upper openings. B deflects them, but is coming under considerable pressure. Suddenly, A' lets his right hand slip along the grip towards the pommel (which gives him a few important inches more reach and is called "Geisseln", to flaggelate). With a step out to the side he hits well under B's cover low on the back of the calf, taking him by surprise.

-Akora- wrote: Not to be too snotty, but the coup de Jarnac was not considered a dirty move at all. That is a common myth about the duel. The strike was a slash across the back of the calf, and was considered quite legal. Most historians consider the duel to be a very gentlemanly one- the only outstanding facet of this duel was that Jarnac was clearly the underdog in the duel, and was not expected to win.

-Akora- wrote:
The coup de Jarnac did come to mean "a cheap shot" or "low blow", but it is like many historical sayings a misnomer. Also, Jarnac's opponent did not die from the wound, but was so ashamed by the defeat that he asked Jarnac to kill him. Jarnac did not, and some sources say that despite their grievances the two eventually became friends again. There is a link to a historical society on the TROS main page, I'm sure they have an account of the duel, considered to be one of the most famous (or infamous) in France's history.

Akora

Richard_Strey wrote:
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.

dude, I love leg shots in sparring! They are by far the most effectiveI have used next to wrist/hands. and that bit about getting thwacked in teh head means you are probably doing it wrong.
and seeing as the best way to dodge a leg shot is to step back then your whole range bonus is not all that applicable... if the defender blocks or parries then it makes even less sense since he has to move his weapon in to block. that can put him in a better situation than the attacker but no more so than what the mechanics of the game already represent quite well.


and leg shots are given a +1
Just my take.

One of the reasons that the TROS people aim at unarmoured parts is that the armor negates damage totally.

With this I mean the following: Try wearing a chainmail and then let your friend hit you with a sword (not a sharp one) and see if the damage is negated totally.
It is not.
Although the blade does not necessarily cut the skin the energy of the blow is transferred to the body and it has consequenses.
It is basically the same as in getting shot with a bulletproof vest, although it is not as damaging.
The method for representing this concussion/blunt trauma is missing in TROS. So in real life those armoured knight probably hit the armoured parts also to make opponent lose balance etc.

MAin thing about combat is that which many have already put up: You cannot always choose where to hit. Body positions of you and your opponent affect this, timing, distance, everything. You see a good opening and you go there. To represent this in TROS woulc complicate combat wayt too much. See you would have to give penalties/bonuses on defendint/attacking diefferent body parts based on the last maneuver used by you or your opponent etc. Or you could use random locations like in the counter table. That IMHO takes the fun out of combat.

But as much as we like TROS combat and its realism it too has its flaws but I still like the mechanics although they are not a total simulation of real combat they give nice tactical decisions to players and that increases the suspense and fun.

That's why they had padding under the mail.

But I think the key here is that no single piece of armor covers whole zones (at least not usually, the torso may be covered with a mail shirt, for example). If you swing at IV, you may hit the head, neck, chest or arms. In a duel you can see what armor the opponent has and strike what it doesn't cover; on battlefield I as a GM wouldn't give much details about the enemy. That way armor is much more useful on battlefield.

The Counter maneuver also gives a random hit zone.. The table could also be used on battlefield or similar conditions?

Yes the padding definitely helps.
But it does not absorb the whole energy of the blow. Dor does it distribute itself into that wide area. I am not talkinb about rapier thrusts here, I am referring to cutting strikes with heavy swords. Imagine your arm getting a good cut from a few pounds of steel. All that energy on the tiny edge. I just wonder if that mail and padding is going to leave your arm without fractures?

I agree with Ville that TRoS should not be turned into an endlessly detailed simulation of weapon position, armor "chinks," etc. ad nasuem. However, at the same time, I think that modeling relative weaknesses in armor might add a fun element to the game.

You could just allow a sort of called shot, with a die penalty for it, for targeting "weaker armor" -- not necessarily a specific sub-zone or anything, just a general weakness, if there are any. That way, lesser-armored fighters cna still take down opponents in full plate harness -- if they're really good or outnumber him. Right now, the armor makes those who wear it a little too tank-like sometimes.

As was suggested though, I wouldn't allow this in a hectic battle, or would at least apply further penalties.