Art De La Guerre

[AlanCutner]

P47 states that all units have a basic protection value of 1 against xbow and firearms (unless WWg or El). The table on P20 includes armour factors in the protection for foot knights and mounted troops but not others.

Are the values on P20 the 'basic protection values'? The note at the bottom of the page isn't completely clear on this. If this is the case it means crossbows/firearms cancel the effects of armour/heavy armour for foot knights and mounted, but not for others. Doesn't seem right to me.

[madaxeman]

[AlanCutner]

Further point. P16 states armour ability is added to the basic protection of 0 for mounted and 1 for foot. Then goes on to say the armour ability has already been included for foot knights and mounted on the table on P20.

Can this be taken to categorically mean basic protection is 0 for mounted and 1 for foot? And therefore it is 1 for both against crossbow/firearms, and armour ability is added after that?

[fdunadan]

No.
ANY unit wich is shhot by crosbow or firearms has a protection of 1(except WWg and El who keep their protection, respectively 2 and 0)

This mean, if your crossbow is firing at a Medium cav-> protection 1 instead of 0
if your crossbow is firing at dismounted Knight -> protection 1 instead of 3
and if your crossbow is firing at an Elephant -> protection 0
_________________
Audentes fortuna iuvat.

[ethan]

also worth noting that if you have a pavise this is added after the xbow adjustment so effectively a unit with a pavise is +2 vs. xbow.

[AlanCutner]

So protection is 1 against xbows (except WWg and El), and armour modifiers don't apply. This is how we've played it, but its not really what the rules say.

[madaxeman]

[AlanCutner]

The question arose when adjudicating in a game involving a new player when crossbows shot at armoured infantry. I ruled the infantry had an overall protection of 1 (as seems to be the agreed rating on this thread).

However the player quite reasonably pointed out that P20 gives the start/basic/base (choose wording!) which becomes a 1 against crossbows. And then armour effects are applied for infantry, giving armoured infantry an overall +2 to their die roll. He accepted my ruling.

I don't think this is a matter of 'barkerese'. Its always helpful to be able to back up a ruling by pointing to the relevant section(s) in the rulebook. I found I couldn't definitively do that in this case.

[fdunadan]

The problem seems to be in yje word "basic"...and the armor...

At the beginning the factor is what is said in the page 20.

For mounted, armor is scripted and there is a ligne for "medium cavalry" and another for "heavy cavalry" wich quotes "with armor" (or Knights and Heavy Knights) and so the basic factor is given in the board... for the mounted.

For infantry, the protection factor DOES NOT include armor (except for "Knights on foot" wich are stated Prot: 3 heavy armor ). Armor (and the protection) must be added and dépends of the army list and then you have the "basic" factor.

If you have some Men at arms, they will be HI (so prot 1), and if you give then armor (and pay the price), they become HI armor (prot 2)

This is this protection wich is modified by Crossbow, Longbows or Artillery.

And after, you look at the cover, pavise,... to eventually increase the protection.
_________________
Audentes fortuna iuvat.

[Maverick2909]

So LMI bowmen are better in shooting than LMI crossbowmen? We have been playing where if you had a protection of more than 1 it brought you down to 1. However we haven't been giving units like LMI and medium cav a +1 when being shot at by crossbowmen. It seems the consensus here is we should be.

[madaxeman]

[Maverick2909]

That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. I'll have to inform my playgroup about our mistake. Makes longbowmen and medium cav even better than before.