Game Discussion

The problem with doing melee or DoS resolution is that such a possibility would likely call for a different strategy, the former option would definitely have made Theo go all in on the first pass. In which case people will likely say that Baelon suddenly altered the rules in his favor.

If going by statistics, and assuming both keep to the defensive +1/+2 strategies, then we're looking at this crazy scenario:
Baelon has a 50% chance at going 332 passes without failing his roll.
Theo has a 50% chance at going 337 passes without failing his roll.

With Lucky, Theo has a 98.9% chance of turning a fail into a success, whereas this is 99.3% for Baelon
And there's an 83% chance of Theo being able to use BoA on a failure to turn it into a success, which turns this to something like Theo having 50% chance of going around 900 passes, and Baelon 660, or thereabouts.

So...let's not do that.

I suggest we go to say, 15 or 20 rounds, and then we ask reader (Forrest Frey sounds like someone we'd both trust) to make a coin toss. I'd be inclined to suggest we just skip the rolling part, declare that lances were broken and nobody got unhorsed and just do the coin toss. No ransoms, and possibly dividing up the winnings from position.

Culturally it will be swords or DoS that Lord Frey suggests after 14 lances (if both agree) or 20 (if both do not).

Baelon Drakeson wrote:How I would handle a mounted opponent while not mounted:
Greater Action: "Pulling a Rider from a Mount" (the actual, though inelegant, name in the book)
Take Fatigue for lesser action
Lesser Action: Mount horse

Not only do you deny them the benefits of being mounted, you get those benefits yourself - and a free horse.

Trot a mile on his horse

Again, both of those options would be extremely likely to have changed Theo's choices.

When rules are:
1. Keep going until one gets unhorsed.
2. If both are unhorsed at same time, get back up and repeat.

Then I say coin toss is fair, both IC and OOC. Represents the general odds (discounting Theo having two more benefit uses than Baelon left, but he is willing to take a 50-50 shot at getting into the final with his daily benefits to make up the difference in skill between him and Aerion as opposed to upping his chances at reaching the final, but then have wasted his chance at winning it when he gets there).

Also, I don't think there ever was a joust settled on foot afterwards mentioned in the canon, draws being awarded did happen, though.

Theomore Tullison wrote:The problem with doing melee or DoS resolution is that such a possibility would likely call for a different strategy, the former option would definitely have made Theo go all in on the first pass. In which case people will likely say that Baelon suddenly altered the rules in his favor.

If Lord Forrest is calling for it mid-joust:
1. the wouldn't have been able to use a different strategy, because he wouldn't have known it was coming.
2. Baelon isn't the one changing the rules, Lord Forrest is.

Theomore Tullison wrote:I suggest we go to say, 15 or 20 rounds, and then we ask reader (Forrest Frey sounds like someone we'd both trust) to make a coin toss. I'd be inclined to suggest we just skip the rolling part, declare that lances were broken and nobody got unhorsed and just do the coin toss. No ransoms, and possibly dividing up the winnings from position.

Why that many? 14 is 10 more passes, I think that's sufficient time for Theo to adopt a different strategy, should he desire.

Theomore Tullison wrote:Again, both of those options would be extremely likely to have changed Theo's choices.

Again, he wouldn't have known it was going to happen, so he would have had no reason to make different choices.

Theomore Tullison wrote:Also, I don't think there ever was a joust settled on foot afterwards mentioned in the canon, draws being awarded did happen, though.

We have in-game examples of jousts being resolved on foot. Loreia and Jon Roxton, for instance.

There are several bouts settled on foot in canon. Notes when I get home. Technically you don't even have to admit defeat once unhorsed it seems - Lord Tully draws his sword at Ashford after being unhorsed and Ser Humfrey is chivalrous to dismount - not all would be so generous.

Dual dismounts are settled by blades too in canon - Ser Lyonel Baratheon v one of Lord Ashfords sons. Another match ends of foot, but the circumstances are unclear as Dunk is distracted.

But in non-dismount situations, draws are awarded as far as canon goes.

Or highest DoS, presiding Lord or judge gives the verdict.

It's a warrior society - if one of you dismounts after a long draw and unsheathes a weapon, the other will be expected to defend his honour. No draws here as it is a SF, so it is DoS or swords to defend your place of honour.*


*honour may also be defended with maces, axes and so on. Honour may cause dizziness, light-headedness and in extreme causes even death. If you develop complications while using honour, please stop your actions immediately and consult your septon.

Maybe. Although it puts an end to a prolonged match, it seems a bit unsporting to resort to melee after x number of passes, especially if you haven't been riding well. Just seems a little petty to me. It depends on the circumstance though, such as when a match may be declared against you unfairly for x reasons. I think that would be subject for debate, when both haven't fallen and there is no indication of the call to foot being made purely because one is aware their opponent outperformed them.  DoS seems the fairest way to settle a match when neither participant is knocked off of their horse by x number of passes.

It might seem unsporting or petty to us, but it was, by several accounts, entirely expected in Westeros (and, in fact, kind of seems like their equivalent to overtime).

I imagine a peasant, at first, would really enjoy knights breaking lance after lance on one another. Eventually it'd get boring and someone would shout out, "Use your sword already!" Then people would yell in agreement and start chanting, then the knights would be peer pressured until they duke it out on the ground.

I guess so. They wanna see someone get knocked down.

I though I had made the Bloodriders a bit OP, but those cavalry archers are even worse (I intentionally stopped the BR at Marksmanship 4) Also, how did they get 180xp of upgrades?? That's 4 upgrades past elite, and this is the first battle I recall them being in...

I find general emergence of cavalry archers a bit ... troublesome. Apart from being ridiculosly overpowered they really have no place in Westeros in my opinion...

Kevan Lyras wrote:

I though I had made the Bloodriders a bit OP, but those cavalry archers are even worse (I intentionally stopped the BR at Marksmanship 4) Also, how did they get 180xp of upgrades?? That's 4 upgrades past elite, and this is the first battle I recall them being in...

I find general emergence of cavalry archers a bit ... troublesome. Apart from being ridiculosly overpowered they really have no place in Westeros in my opinion...

I'm inclined to agree. It's a pretty big deal in the books that only the Dothraki do that.

The books specifically mentions Sarsfield mounted crossbowmen, though.

Personally, I blame it on the cavalry unit for being dirt cheap for what you get out of it.

Crossbows are different though. Easier to aim while moving.

Also they would likely have a slower rate of fire. How I would handle it is that cav archers can shoot at a unit but since there is only 20 of them the not gets the same bonus +20 that characters face when attacking a larger unit

Lady Corrine Marsten wrote:Crossbows are different though. Easier to aim while moving.

They are different. I have no idea how someone would cock a crossbow on a horse. It would have to be a small one with a very light pull. You'd need to fire from very short range to do any damage to someone in armor.

Nathaniel Mason wrote:

Lady Corrine Marsten wrote:Crossbows are different though. Easier to aim while moving.

They are different.  I have no idea how someone would cock a crossbow on a horse.  It would have to be a small one with a very light pull.  You'd need to fire from very short range to do any damage to someone in armor.

I was only talking about aim specifically, but yeah, it would need to be a small, compact crossbow, which do exist, I think. Or of not, it would be a one shot thing and then they switch to a sensible mounted weapon.

GRRM does fail at research in a number of places. This is one of them.

There's also the possibility they're not mounted once a fight begins. A "dragoon" type of troop would have still been pretty handy, and fit the Westerosi style; the strategic mobility of horsemen combined with the firepower of archers/crossbowmen after reaching the field? That's still a pretty potent combo, in the grand scheme of things.

I think it's a bit OP, to be honest.

Yeah, I dont think the mobility of archers is the problem of the horsearchers in our game. It is more the fact that they are basically knightly fighters with heavy armor and a bow sidearm rather than lightly armored archers on horseback. (Which would still allow for unusual tactics compared to the books but would not be as overpowered as the current version)

In truth the biggest benefit of making your archers mounted is the "free" endurance, athletics, and armor improvement. The mobility boost would be useful for getting into range of siege/engineers without getting a catapult to the face, too. Other than that... generally they are better off finding a hill to park themselves on and not moving at all, just like any other archer unit. they are cataphracts, not skirmish horse-archers.

Still, it's not cheap; the Bloodriders have a higher power cost than a banner house. Granted, some of that came from battlefield experience improvements, not paid for from resources, but still...

Gwyneth Drakeson wrote:Gwyn feigned an affronted look and said, "As a wife, I can assure you I see a happy married man every day. Until my husband comes home."

She laughed.

"In seriousness though, I know several men who are either happily married, or put on an extremely convincing performance of being so. I suppose marriage doesn't suit every man...or woman for that matter...but we don't all have that luxury of putting happiness over House. The power you have comes with countervailing duties...such is the price of the favor of the gods, hm?"

She waved a hand airily.

"But you can get all that from your father and mother, I suppose. For now, for here, that is far away from you. Though I will say if you ever find yourself wanting to find your own bride, before your father can line one up for you...you may want to talk to Corrine. She has a knack for it. Oh, excuse me." Gwyn raises her glass with a wry smile. "Lady Marsten."

Love you, Cousin.

lol...you'll always be Corrine to her.