Mechanical discussion

Are there any warfare actions you can use while burning a DP?

The more sensible option is to use leader of men after the second attack, because that is only disorganized once. Assuming DP expenditure.

What happens next is that the Wyl commander must either allow himself to be routed off the field in order to take out the red swords, or rally his command unit, giving you two rounds to do things before he can act again.

The first option will probably win him the battle if he doesn't destroy the Red Swords outright (in which case you win in the next round.) Taking out the archers will probably loose him the battle. If he chooses Rally, it's kind of a restart option.

Septon Arlyn wrote:Are there any warfare actions you can use while burning a DP?

You can always burn it to make an opposing unit's attack fail, for example.

The more sensible option is to use leader of men after the second attack, because that is only disorganized once. Assuming DP expenditure.

You mean waiting until the second attack routes the Red Swords to get them back to disorganized again via Leader of Men?
as you point out that would make little difference overall?

The difference being that each disorganization bestows -1D, so using it after first attack equals -2D total.

Kevan Lyras wrote:This is getting more complicated everytime we have an additional discussion

Agreed.

Kevan Lyras wrote:Here is where I stand so far, happy for somebody to comment / check assumptions:

1) Readied attack disorganizes Cavalry w/commander
2) Commander cavalry disorganizes Red Swords
3) Leader of men reorganizes Red Swords
4) Cavalry 2 attacks Red Swords: 19 [5d6k4=[6, 6, 5, 2], 1 ->
spend DP  2 DoS ->
Disorganized again

Assumption: Leader of Men can be used off-turn and can interrupt readied actions.
If not, then then Cavalry 2's attack, modified by the DP, would rout but not destroy the Red Swords.
If Leader of Men can be used off-turn but not interrupt readied actions, then after being routed but before fleeing, you could reorganize them with it.
In this case, that works out pretty much the same as if they can interrupt readied actions. You would take 3 more damage, but otherwise no change.
If Leader of Men cannot be used off-turn at all, then save your DP - the Red Swords would rout and flee.

Kevan Lyras wrote:
5) Golden Arrows rout Cavalry w/commander
6) Cavalry with commander flees the battlefield (if the flee straight away from the attacking Golden Arrows the would flee diagonally out of the battlefield ending in right here / if they would flee more descriptive back to the castle they would need another round to get out of the map

Assumption: a commander attached to a routed unit must flee with that unit.
Assumption: a commander attached to a unit that routs off the map must also exit the map.
If both of these are true, then it depends on the prior assumptions about Leader of Men, and whether or not Kevan is still able to give the order to the Golden Arrows to attack. If he was routed off, then by Theo's logic this attack order could not have been given.

It's worth noting too that the only reason the map is so narrow is convenience - there did not seem to be a need for any additional vertical space, and keeping it small meant being able to fit it all in a single Code box without scrollbars. If we assume "
flee directly away from the attacker and not "
flee towards safety"
then there would have been a reason to have a larger map. There were no described or even implied geographical limitations to the size of the map.

Kevan Lyras wrote:7) Wyl’s turn. They can:
a) Rally the commander cavalry
b) Attack the Golden Arrows as they did originally:
c) Attack the disorganized Red Swords ->
Red Swords are routed

Subject to so many prior assumptions that it's almost laughable trying to figure out what could or could not happen at this stage. :?

Kevan Lyras wrote:So even with the spent DP I would be defeated, correct?

There are so many assumptions that need to be clarified that I am honestly not entirely sure.

Kevan Lyras wrote:If 6) is interpreted in a way that the cavalry flees directly diagonally off the map we could end in a situation where both commanders are routed and off map...

Depending on how the assumptions are resolved... yes. That would be more of a problem for you, as presumably Ser Antony would take command of the remaining Wyl forces.

Septon Arlyn wrote:Are there any warfare actions you can use while burning a DP?

Only the usual effects of burning a DP, such as Theo pointed out. You cannot spend/burn a DP for an extra order or anything like that.

Theomore Tullison wrote:The more sensible option is to use leader of men after the second attack, because that is only disorganized once. Assuming DP expenditure.

Ex post facto, yes, but in the moment Kevan wouldn't know that. Rallying from a rout leaves the unit disorganized, so it is more vulnerable than if they were reorganized after the first attack and then weathered the second attack. Also, you are continuing to make the same assumptions that I pointed out in response to your previous post. I think we can all agree that it is best not to assume what way those will be resolved? Making assumptions about assumptions just makes things even messier.

Theomore Tullison wrote:What happens next is that the Wyl commander must either allow himself to be routed off the field in order to take out the red swords, or rally his command unit, giving you two rounds to do things before he can act again.

Or order the second unit to rout the Red Swords, who would flee prior... and if the cavalry fleeing would take Ser Walter off, the Red Swords fleeing would take Kevan off. Ser Walton would then have all three orders of the next round in which to rally his cavalry;
or, Ser Antony could take command at the end of the present round. Either way, it is the Targaryan forces that would be left leaderless, not the Wyl forces.

Theomore Tullison wrote:The difference being that each disorganization bestows -1D, so using it after first attack equals -2D total.

It's a moot point really - either way the Red Swords would be routed and flee before being making another attack.

Baelon wrote:It's worth noting too that the only reason the map is so narrow is convenience - there did not seem to be a need for any additional vertical space, and keeping it small meant being able to fit it all in a single Code box without scrollbars. If we assume "
flee directly away from the attacker and not "
flee towards safety"
then there would have been a reason to have a larger map. There were no described or even implied geographical limitations to the size of the map.

Adjusting this solves a lot of the problems here. There's no narrative reason for such a small battfield, the narrow map was just an understandable convenience.

Baelon wrote:

Kevan Lyras wrote:Here is where I stand so far, happy for somebody to comment / check assumptions:

1) Readied attack disorganizes Cavalry w/commander
2) Commander cavalry disorganizes Red Swords
3) Leader of men reorganizes Red Swords
4) Cavalry 2 attacks Red Swords: 19 [5d6k4=[6, 6, 5, 2], 1 ->
spend DP  2 DoS ->
Disorganized again

Assumption: Leader of Men can be used off-turn and can interrupt readied actions.
If not, then then Cavalry 2's attack, modified by the DP, would rout but not destroy the Red Swords.
If Leader of Men can be used off-turn but not interrupt readied actions, then after being routed but before fleeing, you could reorganize them with it.
In this case, that works out pretty much the same as if they can interrupt readied actions. You would take 3 more damage, but otherwise no change.
If Leader of Men cannot be used off-turn at all, then save your DP - the Red Swords would rout and flee.

Leader of men: "
Once per round of a skirmish or battle, you may automatically reorganize one disorganized unit or rally one routed unit. Using this quality does not count as an order."

Automatically means that it happens at once.

Baelon wrote:

Kevan Lyras wrote:
5) Golden Arrows rout Cavalry w/commander
6) Cavalry with commander flees the battlefield (if the flee straight away from the attacking Golden Arrows the would flee diagonally out of the battlefield ending in right here / if they would flee more descriptive back to the castle they would need another round to get out of the map

Assumption: a commander attached to a routed unit must flee with that unit.
Assumption: a commander attached to a unit that routs off the map must also exit the map.
If both of these are true, then it depends on the prior assumptions about Leader of Men, and whether or not Kevan is still able to give the order to the Golden Arrows to attack. If he was routed off, then by Theo's logic this attack order could not have been given.

It's worth noting too that the only reason the map is so narrow is convenience - there did not seem to be a need for any additional vertical space, and keeping it small meant being able to fit it all in a single Code box without scrollbars. If we assume "
flee directly away from the attacker and not "
flee towards safety"
then there would have been a reason to have a larger map. There were no described or even implied geographical limitations to the size of the map.

We can just assume that there was some fields. We won't need one big map, we can just assume that the one is next to the other.

Baelon wrote:

Kevan Lyras wrote:7) Wyl’s turn. They can:
a) Rally the commander cavalry
b) Attack the Golden Arrows as they did originally:
c) Attack the disorganized Red Swords ->
Red Swords are routed

Subject to so many prior assumptions that it's almost laughable trying to figure out what could or could not happen at this stage. :?

Can't you just do it properly, it would be easier than discussing it...

Baelon wrote:

Kevan Lyras wrote:If 6) is interpreted in a way that the cavalry flees directly diagonally off the map we could end in a situation where both commanders are routed and off map...

Depending on how the assumptions are resolved... yes. That would be more of a problem for you, as presumably Ser Antony would take command of the remaining Wyl forces.

I assume that both sides will have at least warfare 3 commanders...

Reader wrote:

Baelon wrote:It's worth noting too that the only reason the map is so narrow is convenience - there did not seem to be a need for any additional vertical space, and keeping it small meant being able to fit it all in a single Code box without scrollbars. If we assume "
flee directly away from the attacker and not "
flee towards safety"
then there would have been a reason to have a larger map. There were no described or even implied geographical limitations to the size of the map.

Adjusting this solves a lot of the problems here. There's no narrative reason for such a small battfield, the narrow map was just an understandable convenience.

Well, it doesn't solve the underlying issue. For instance, what direction would the Red Swords flee in if routed by Cavalry unit 2? If their path is blocked by another unit (friendly or foe), an obstacle, or a hazard, what happens? I suspect that these questions or variations on them will come up a lot.

One note: the wording under "
routed"
on page 188 only states that they sprint "
away"
and not "
directly away"
.
Also, assuming "
directly away"
will get really messy with odd-angle marksmanship attacks. I think "
generally away, towards safety if possible, as far as possible"
as a flexible priority list for determining the direction would at least cover most situations well. I am assuming of course that because they are sprinting it has to be in a straight line, so no turning to go around corners or anything like that.

Yoren longshore wrote:Leader of men: "
Once per round of a skirmish or battle, you may automatically reorganize one disorganized unit or rally one routed unit. Using this quality does not count as an order."

Automatically means that it happens at once.

Automatically means, generally, "
without intentional effort"
not "
immediately"
. Really, it means closer to 'without will' or 'involuntary', but those are in conflict with the 'may', so a secondary or less precise meaning must be at work. [url=Source][/url].

Yoren longshore wrote:Can't you just do it properly, it would be easier than discussing it...

Once the rules decisions are made, yes. Until then, we would merely run into the same ambiguities.

Yoren longshore wrote:I assume that both sides will have at least warfare 3 commanders...

I don't follow? Kevan is the only commander on the Targaryan side, with no sub-commanders or heroes able to perform the "
Take Command"
player action (pg. 187).
Ser Antony, the hero on the Dornish side is, I have been assuming, a Knight of Quality. That means he has a Warfare of 3 with no specialty dice. He could perform the "
Take Command"
Action in the current round.

Interesting - a hero is more likely to be able to take command quickly than a sub-commander. If the sub-commander has issued an order that round, they cannot perform actions in step 8, and thus cannot Take Command. A hero cannot issue orders, and therefore will always be able to act in Step 8.

Probably something deserving a house rule.

The lack of specification beyond once per round is open to interpretation, GR hasn't said a squick about it. I'd be inclined to say you can do it whenever you please.

On hand, that would be the most consistent with the (lack of) rules on it.
On the other hand, it is already a very powerful benefit - essentially getting an extra order that is always successful and doesn't raise TN of future orders.

Leader of men - can only be used in your turn.

Fleeing - towards safety, around obstacles seems sensible. For this battle, extending the map a little if either sides needs it seems reasonable.

Anything else needed?

Reader wrote:Leader of men - can only be used in your turn.

Fleeing - towards safety, around obstacles seems sensible. For this battle, extending the map a little if either sides needs it seems reasonable.

Anything else needed?

One more:
Are commanders forced to flee with routed units, even if it means they are removed from the map?
(I'm assuming that the "
extend"
the map in this case meant the short vertical axis, not the long 300+ yard horizontal axis, presumably bordered on one end by the castle and on the other by the siege being defended?)

Also, it doesn't really matter in this case any more due to the ruling on Leader of Men, but another question that came up:
If a unit charges a unit with a readied melee attack, which attack happens first? The triggering charge or the readied attack?

Commanders flee with their men but an then detach and return to the fray. Creates the effect of being swept up in the panic and trying to control things while preserving some player agency.

Revised 'rewind' analysis - note that looked at the wrong stat block in the last analysis, so I was using the GA CD instead of the RS CD... it makes a huge difference.
GA readied attack vs Vet. Cavalry
21 vs CD 10, 3 DoS;
18 - 5AR = 13 Damage [Disorganized, 1+2 = 3 damage to Ser Walter (9/12)]

Veteran Cavalry charge [-1D from disorganized]

W/ Defend: 14 vs CD 9, 2 DoS;
20 - 6AR = 14 Damage [Disorganized, 1+2 = 3 damage to Kevan (9/12)]
No Defend: 14 vs CD 4, 3 DoS = 30 - 6AR [Destroyed, 1+10 = 11 damage to Kevan (1/12)] presumably Kevan spends DP to apply -1D, rendering a 2 DoS result (same as W/Defend case)

Trained Cavalry Charge (W/Defend assumes -1D from a DP, No Defend case assumes -1D from a worst-case scenario readied attack disorganizing them)

W/Defend: 17 vs CD 9, 2 DoS;
20 - 6AR = 14 Damage [Routed, 1+5 = 6 damage to Kevan (3/12)] Red Swords rout East towards safety, moving NE first to go around the Golden Arrows, depositing Kevan at B1
No Defend: 17 vs CD 4, 3 DoS = 30 - 6AR [Destroyed, 1+10 = 11 damage to Kevan. injury reduces to 7 (2/12)]

(Kevan's Order)
Golden Arrows attack Vet. Cavalry (using the roll that was originally against the trained cavalry)

12 vs. CD 10, 1 DoS;
6 - 5AR = 1 Damage [Routed, 1+5 = 6 damage to Ser Walter (3/12)]
Vet. Cavalry rout west towards safety, to B26

Note: If they target the Trained Cavalry instead, it would be:
12 vs. CD 5, 2 DoS ;
12 - 5AR = 7 Damage [Routed, 1+5 = 6 damage to Ser Antony (3/12)];
in this case the order to attack the Golden Arrows would have gone to the Vet Cavalry;
the roll would be the same as the "
no defend"
case below... though the opportunity would be there for them to attack Kevan directly it would at worst cause a wound;
the GA are the actual threat.

(Walter's Order)
Trained Cavalry attack the Golden Arrows - with the Red Swords gone, it is no longer desirable to move (better to be in melee), so a regular Attack instead of the Fighting Withdrawal

W/ Defend: 18 vs CD 7, 3 DoS;
24 - 2AR = 22 Damage [Destroyed]
No Defend: 15 vs CD 7, 2 DoS;
16 - 2AR = 14 Damage [Destroyed] (assumes -1D for being disorganized by the Red Swords)

Summary:
If the Red Swords Defend AND Kevan spends a DP, they rout. If one of those does not occur, they are destroyed. Either way the Dornish are victorious.

Yep, looking at Baelon's post, I agree that the outcome is as presented by him. With the restriction of using "
leader of men"
only on my own turns, this weakens the ability quite a bit, especially since with this ruling, it can almost never be used to rally routed units, because it is now only applicable if the unit gets routed in a place on the battlefield, where one sprint action does not take them out of the map.
(Obviously, I fully accept Reader's ruling and do not want to keep this discussion going, there have been enough rules / interpretation discussions on that battle for my taste :;
): )

That leaves the option:
Spend DP: Kevan without injury, Red Swords routed, GAs destroyed
No DP: Kevan takes an injury, Red Swords and GAs are destroyed

Either way, battle is over, Theo loses siege equipment, I roll on the relevant unit progression tables. Correct?

I will write-up an IC post of the revised battle and outcome

Very much in favour of extending the battlefield to allow routing units back on, unless geography forbids it. I don't want "
Leader of Men"
to be useless.

Bravo for taking the defeat like a mensch. A general of merit is one who has suffered at least one defeat. Hopefully makes for some interesting story too.

As you elected against a personal combat (to your cost) how do you feel about one to help cover your retreating men and gain some personal revenge?

Kevan Lyras wrote:With the restriction of using "
leader of men"
... is now only applicable if the unit gets routed in a place on the battlefield, where one sprint action does not take them out of the map.

Or if they get routed by a readied action - then it is still on your turn. Leader of Men greatly reduces the risk of offensive actions. Especially with the clarification on the direction of routed movement, Leader of Men makes moving into enemy range far less risky. For instance, if Ser Walter had Leader of Men, he could have prevented his unit from fleeing.

I see these clarifications/rulings as a good thing overall. "
Ready and wait"
was, if anything, too strong of a tactic. Now there is strong incentive to control battlefield territory, to control the pace of the battle, etc. I think they will make for more interesting battles. Also, I note that cavalry have a greater weakness to being routed - they are more likely to go off the map even if mid-way into the battlefield. Foot soldiers, particularly the heavily armored types, will have more opportunities to be rallied. Infantry are more likely to be routed than equal-power cavalry, but are also more likely to recover from it.

Baelon wrote:

Theomore Tullison wrote:So we're going to need a clarification on how siege weapons works.

What the book says:
-They can fire once every two rounds.
-An engineer unit can control up to four siege weapons.
-A commander can use an order to fire a number of siege weapons up to his warfare rank, the engineer unit controlling each rolls warfare to see how it goes.
-Siege Weapons has Health, AR and movement (sometimes no movement).

What it doesn't say:
-What is the combat defense? 0 for not having the relevant abilities?
-How does the engineering unit control siege engines? Can an engineering unit switch what siege weapon to control? Does it need to be adjacent?
-What sort of space does a siege weapon take? Does it move around with individual orders?

Me, I'd go with something like this:
1. In order to control a siege weapon, an engineer unit must share space with it.
2. When an engineer unit is ordered to move, it must either relinquish control of any siege weapons or bring them along (thus being restricted by the movement of the siege weapons).
3. If an engineer unit ends a move action in a space with a siege weapon, it may take control of it.
4. A routed engineer unit leaves any siege weapons behind when it flees.
5. Siege Weapons has a combat defense of 0.

Plus the parts the book says, of course.

Hmm. Good questions. I'm not sure about your suggestions though.

1,3: An engineer unit can control up to 4 siege weapons. If they have to share the space with the siege weapons, the siege weapons would have to be... small. That doesn't really fit.
I would say that perhaps a unit has to be adjacent, or perhaps within a fixed distance (no more than 2 squares away?), and a siege weapon takes up a space itself.

2,4: Taking a precedent from the siege tower description, siege engines with a movement speed have their own means of movement (horses, etc) and are ordered like units. Only a move action is possible (no sprint, etc.). Siege is either intact or destroyed (at 0 HP) - it doesn't demoralize, rout, cannot be rallied, etc - but also doesn't roll for survival. It either survives (and gets repaired) or is destroyed in the battle.

5: This seems low. Add in the caveat that siege are treated as units and it gets better.... but it still seems like whichever side goes first will easily wipe out the opponent's siege, then have a massive advantage.

EDIT: fixed a crucial typo... does vs. doesn't.

1) Adjacent
2) Go with Baelon's suggestion.
3) Adjacency and not engaged with an opposing unit to control siege engines.
4) Baelon's suggestion.
5) We'll go with CD 0 for now and see where we are.

Hey, got a quick question for you guys. My wires got crossed when my PC suffered a Knockdown and got Charged multiple times. I forgot to add this into my math when determining rolls for the chargers.

One Man-at-Arms knocks Loreia down. Men-at-Arms have 4D Fighting, 2B Pole-arms, and are equipped with Halberds. Halberds have impose a training penalty of -1B. Three Charge her. The Charge action imposes a -1D on a Standard Attack but grants +2 base damage.

This is where I forgot about the Knockdown completely, and figured the first two rolls as follows before I realized my mistake:
4D+2B -1B for total of 5 dice. 4D -1D for a total of 3 kept: 5d6k3

So I'm wondering now whether bonus Test dice and panalty Test dice cancel each other out...
4D+2B -1B for total of 5 dice. 4D kept: 5d6k4 (+1D Knockdown -1D Charge = +0D)

...or if they "
stack"
, allowing a remnant of +1B.
4D+1D+2B -1B for total of 6 dice. 4D +1D -1D for a total of 4 kept: 6d6k4

This will decide whether my character takes 5 damage from just the last guy who attacked me for 5 damage, or all three for a total of 15 which will force me to take an Injury. No pressure(funny, when someone says that, you know instantly that they don't really mean it).

There's no cancelling out, so 4D+1B+1D-1D becomes 6D6K4,

How long does improved disposition from an intrigue last? What about the +1D for winning in a next intrigue? Seems to me like it's indefinite but wanted to check :-)

Ser Fendrel Bartheld wrote:How long does improved disposition from an intrigue last? What about the +1D for winning in a next intrigue? Seems to me like it's indefinite but wanted to check :-)

Disposition - until events/behaviour shifts it again.
Bonus - 'til end of next intrigue.

How much more does superior equipment cost?

From the [url=House Rules thread][/url]:

Reader wrote:High quality equipment

Superior items cost 5x the price of the base items or +1000ss, whichever is higher.