Morien

Remember that ALL modifiers apply in 467. So Berroc Loyalists would get -10 for Loyalist and -10 for Berroc for a total of -20. So they will be at Carlion for sure. The split between Non-Berroc Loyalists and Berroc Loyalists in 463 was to make it a bit easier to tell at a glance what the modifier was, rather than have Loyalist -5 and Berroc +15, for Berroc Loyalists to get +10. As for 466, remember that The March did not go through Berroc. So if a Berroc father got stuck in garrison in Berroc, obviously he didn't get the chance to fight against Aurelius. This doesn't mean that he is an Oath-breaker or a Neutral. He is still a Loyalist, just that his duties kept him from the battlefield. Same is true for Ebbsfleet. I know what the design intent was, since I wrote those modifiers for the Berrocings. Just because they didn't get to go to battle 100% of the time doesn't mean that they forsake their Oath. Maybe they got assigned to guard the homeland. Maybe they were sick/injured. My point is that the Berrocings were conceived to stay loyal to the King of Logres, since that was the Oath they took, providing a stark contrast to Hengest's 'Bad' Saxons. Now it is possible that I missed some modifiers (the earlier 451 and 453, for example), giving the Berrocings a small chance to deviate from their envisioned role. YPWV.

If you go by KAP 5.2, it seems this has been overruled. You get the +3 Armor of Honor for being a Chivalric Knight, and the requirements have an oath that you have to take. This would seem to preclude 'unknowing' Chivalric warriors, and perhaps even exclude non-knights. There is also a precedent, I think, that non-combatant ladies get the Gentlewoman, but not the Chivalric Knight, and female knights get only the Chivalric Knight bonus, even if they also would qualify for the Gentlewoman. One or the other. That being said, I personally extend the Chivalric to all warriors, regardless of origins and status, and rather than the oath, my house-ruled tiered bonus system keeps them walking the walk.

Honestly, an oversight when I was adding the Berroc modifiers & their storyline in: Berrocings stick with their oaths until 468, so it would be out of place for them to turn dissidents already in 453, when even most of the Britons don't really care, either (the Cantii rebellion in 456 is mostly a local affair). However, it could be art by accident, just very unlikely, as Hzark10 pointed out. Personally, if a player does roll that for a family background, I'd rule that they'd better move out of Berroc, since they would be breaking their oath (a big no-no amongst the Berrocings), not just for not fighting for the King of Logres, but actively against him. Good opportunity to relocate the family first to Brittany (as you pointed out) and then to Salisbury after the March?

I think they are Saxon-Saxon. Angles appear only later. Jutes are strongly associated with Hengist and Horsa in Saxons!, as well as the double-kingship, which Berrocingas didn't seem to have.

There were some funny rules like that in 1e, but I think any modifiers in 3e+ are just for the value itself, not on the roll, save when the modified value becomes 21 or more.

Personal oath of homage to Arthur, and swearing of the Round Table Oath. I.e. the requirements. And then Arthur bestowing the new rank. Something like that.

Change the 'modified' from the first to 'unmodified'. "The rule is simple : a critical occurs if your unmodified roll equals your skill value (i.e. for skills 20 and less), or if the modified roll (for skills 21 and above) is superior or equal to 20."

So to clarify: 1.) 2+13 = 15 was not a critical but a mere success. 2.) Since 16 < 17, it is a success, too. 3.) Since 16 > 15, B hits A, but A gets the shield armor bonus due to a partial success. So your final ruling was correct, but A's roll was not a critical to start with.

Standard, yes. But I'd argue that the Battle of Mt. Damen (as presented in BoU) is likely close to 100% knights (and squires) on the Cymric side. However, very much not so on the Saxon side. Nor would there be anything stopping Uther from calling for 1000 knights and no foot soldiers, if his plan would be to just raid across a Saxon Kingdom. Arguably, this is what is going on in Essex in late 480s, skirmishing with the knights rather than the slower infantry.

I did say 'older cultural modifiers', meaning back in 4e and LoG. That being said... I would likely house-rule this. If you are born of Byzantine parents, but raised in Logres amongst your Cymric peers, fostered to a Cymric nobleman and squiring to a Cymric knight, swearing allegiance to Arthur as your King, etc... Why would you have Loyalty ([Byzantine] Emperor) or Loyalty (Unit Leader)? But to each their own.

No, 2 is not a critical success, since the roll is smaller than 7 (20-(33-20) = 20-13 = 7). A better way to calculate is if roll+excess >= 20. In this case 2+13 = 15, which is smaller than 20, so not a critical. This takes care of you problem of 2+13 beating 16 (it doesn't). Also a regular success doesn't lower the critical to a normal success, either. Critical counts as a 20 regardless of the actual calculation, so since 20 is crater than any normal success, the normal success becomes a partial success and critical does double damage. Two critical cause a tie, since both are counted as 20. (people have house rules about that though.)

My PKs tried to make a deal with the giant and got betrayed. Leading to the immortal words of "I can't believe we got outsmarted by a giant!" (The PKs proved victorious in the end by force of arms.) Another campaign, I think they managed to lure the giant down, pretending that the squires has just left the horses to graze there. Whilst the knights were ready in the cover of the forest with their lances.

I'd go with BotE prices, and if I needed to have a stone tower, I'd try to extrapolate it. Of course it also depends what you have been using until now.

Hans Delbrück is a rather old source (lived 1848 - 1929), and IIRC, one of those who are in favor of tiny Medieval Armies. So there might be some bias there. Also, from Wiki (bolded emphasis mine): "Regarding medieval warfare, Delbrück's findings were more controversial. He made a distinction between knights, mounted warriors, and cavalry, an organized mass of mounted troops. He regarded the medieval warrior as an independent fighter, unable to join others and form units with any decisive tactical significance. His conclusions were tested by later scholars, in particular the Belgian historian J. F. Verbruggen." Even Verbruggen's book is almost 70 years old. Research has continued on. I think Delbrück needs to be taken with a fistful of salt. He was a pioneer in military history, but that doesn't make him right in his conclusions.

I think the regional modifiers replace the older cultural modifiers. So if you are a Jute growing up in a county in Logres, you pick up the regional modifiers from that county, not whatever the Jutes would get back in their home country. As the GM, I might accept an argument (especially given the religion you are proposing) that your particular family clings to the 'Old Ways' and hence the trait boni would be for the Jutes (LoG?). But no double-dipping. Religious trait bonuses of course would depend on the religion.

As Hzark10 said, once you are raised as a part of a society, you tend to pick up some of their values. If you are a Roman vassal knight sworn to the Count of Salisbury, you have a heck of a lot more in common with your Cymric neighbors, than with a Roman knight from Rome, or even one from London. If your children are pages at the Court of Salisbury, and squires to Cymric Knights of Salisbury, why would they suddenly pick up traits from some Roman civitas they have never been part of?

OK, let's back off a bit, since we might be talking about two different things here. Are you arguing that the 'lance' in KAP should be 3-man unit: a knight + a squire + light horseman? Sure, go ahead and make that change, the light horseman replaces the two footmen, no other change needed. But you made this argument: Claiming that there was no actual infantry in the High Medieval battles. This is clearly, obviously wrong based on the historical record.

Distinction needs to be drawn also whether the army was a raiding army or not. Small scale raids were probably launched by cavalry alone, and I think during the Hundred Years War, the English chevaunchees at least tried to put every man on a horse. But these were not warhorses and cavalry, but mounted infantry and longbowmen, using the horses for travel but fighting on foot in pitched battles (as did the majority of the English knights and men-at-arms at the time, too). Some Muslim armies may have had a higher cavalry component, in particular the Seljuk Turks and their offshoots, since they started as steppe nomads and kept their horse archery for quite some time. Mameluks fought in the likewise manner pretty much until 17th century, when they were defeated by the Ottomans (who did have very good infantry as the core of the army, but that is past the period we are talking about). But yeah, you can look at pretty much any battle in 1100 - 1300 Western Europe, and while the knights were very important, infantry was present on the battlefield as well and usually numerically superior. Sometimes turning the tide, even.

Disclaimer: I am not a Chaosium employee nor authorised to speak for the company in any way. So just a personal opinion: The Winter Phase one might be crossing the line, copy pasting tables from the books. The other two should be fine.

I'd be very careful about labeling a society as ruled by women simply because the head of state happens to be female. For example in Britain, at the time of Queen Victoria, women (even aristocratic ones) did not have a vote, and even Victoria's position had already become more ceremonial than anything else (although less so than in modern times), reigning rather than ruling. Or if we want to have a even starker example, Queen Elizabeth I. Sure, the Queen had real power, but below her, it was the male aristocrats who occupied all the positions of power. And had the Queen tried to change that, she would have been overthrown.

The core rules are pretty much compatible, but there are some differences even between them, like the Double Feint maneuver being in 4th edition but removed in the 5th. Details as the starting skill values and cultural modifiers, even the whole chargen process (going from 15-yr old + then yearly training to a 21-yr old with some miscellaneous picks and blocks of skills), does change between 4th and 5th edition. There would hardly be a need for a new edition if NOTHING changed, now would there? (Indeed, having started with 4th edition, I was somewhat unimpressed at the time with the 5.0 edition with all its editing mistakes.) Basically, BoK&L is the updated version of the Lands and People's chapter of 4th edition. And Greg wanted to have more variability, I guess. In particular since 5th edition started from Uther's kingship, a couple of generations before 4th edition at the Arthurian Golden Age. Logres was less culturally unified under Uther, whereas under Arthur, by 531, Chivalry is in full bloom, and Logres is inspired by their great king.

Where did you read that, since it is almost certainly not correct, or at the very least, very much oversimplified? If you look at, say, Battle of Bouvines, the infantry is the majority of both armies. In the Battle of Arsuf, the crusaders were mostly infantry again, while Saladin's army was cavalry (mostly horse archers in the Turkish style, I would imagine).

Thane = knight equivalent but usually on foot Hall thane = huskarl = heorthgeneat = household knight but with more emphasis on the bodyguard of the chieftain than rank and file knights. As for 'fierce warriors', a big question is if that is in GM info or Player info. Latter can be just gossip. Former I might give a morale bonus or something, although Greg did like to liven up the language, so not everything has a specific game mechanical meaning.

I was a contributing editor of that book, with my responsibility being the Economic system. I know how Greg intended the Market Town bonuses to work. The bonus is +10% during Boy King, not +20%, which is how I took your question originally. However, with that being said... AFTER the Boy King it is a different ballgame, and I think you are onto something there. We can argue that by late Boy King (i.e. after 515), some market towns might get a higher bonus, and by Conquest, the boni ought to be +20% throughout. I would not have a problem with that, as the defeat of the Saxons opens up new trade routes to the continent and the disappearance of Saxon raids and internecine warfare makes it easier to conduct trade over longer distances. It fits well with the idea that post-Badon opens up a Golden Age for Britain under Arthur. So if you want to start sprinkling +20% boni around after 515 rather than after 518, I think you would be justified in doing so. I'd keep it at first more of a bonus for specific market towns (rewards for Eager Vassals and maybe even PKs who have caught Arthur's eye, indirectly rewarding them with a bonus to their finances) and then upgrade the general bonus to +20% from Conquest onwards. So yeah, rereading your question and the text, I think the 515 mention was Greg foreshadowing the increase of the bonus for CONQUEST. In short, sorry for being so curt earlier. Good catch. Oh, and yes, the market town bonus would increase the income of the PKs' manors in the same hundred. The peasants would not be paying any more taxes, since those taxes (rents) are likely set by time immemorial to be what they are. However, as it explains in the text, the easier access to markets and the increase in trade results in savings, which is expressed as income. I think you could also argue that the rising urban populations mean a higher demand for food, so there might be an increase in the monetary value of render, too, in comparison to craftsmen's goods. The details are not that important, though.

No. Uther and Boy King give +10% per market town/city/port, while Anarchy is 0%. See page 11, Table 1.2.