Morien

1 hour ago, Oleksandr said:

*interestingly, it seems it's impossible to make castle like this by KAP rules😅

Well, there are currently no 40 meter high walls in the fortification lists, sure. I checked Lordly Domains and the tallest walls were just about half that, 60'.

But in principle, there wouldn't be a problem adding such an option. Granted, I would expect it to cost about four times as much as the 60' wall (double the height, double the thickness; x1.5 thickness would be pretty close actually what the thickness is quoted in the Wiki, 16-20', since the 60' wall is 12' thick in LD).

1 hour ago, Oleksandr said:

On more positive note "Although Wilton Abbey was a Benedictine nunnery, it held its lands from the king by knight service. The Abbess' knights were her tenants, who in turn held land from the Abbey by knight service. Usually the abbess fulfilled her duty to the king by scutage. But she had knights with King Henry III on his 1223 Welsh campaign, and at the Siege of Bedford Castle the following year. Between 1277 and 1327 she offered knight service at least four times"

This doesn't mean that the Abbess herself was a knight, just to make that point clear. Just that she was the liege lady to some vassal knights in the lands of the Abbey.

On 12/10/2022 at 11:41 PM, svensson said:

So, how many medievalists or are students of the Medieval period are there in KAP.

I expect more than our share, given the more (pseudo-)historical setting (in comparison to like Forgotten Realms) and the Arthurian literature tradition stretching back to Middle Ages.

As for myself, I don't have any official qualifications, other than a lifelong interest in history (particularly medieval) and fantasy/historical fiction literature. I am actually much less versed in Arthurian literature as some of the buffs in the Forum: HRB & Malory are enough for me. That does mean that my campaigns have much fewer 'easter eggs' for the hardcore affectionados, but given that my players are even less exposed to Arthurian literature, it would be pearls for the swines situation anyway. What I try to accomplish is a world that is internally consistent, one that 'makes sense' to the players and the player-characters. Sure, sometimes stuff happens and faerie magic tends to evoke a string of bad language (from players and PKs alike), but as long as there is verisimilitude and the players are invested in the characters and the campaign, I count that as a victory.

23 minutes ago, Hzark10 said:

I have always believe it to be a form of outrageous, taken to an extreme. Meaning, one is humble in all things. Nothing should be done to extreme.

Given that it is paired with murder, I think it is more serious than that. Perhaps things that would outrage the society. Rape, blasphemy?

Actually pretty close to what Sax Basilisk came up with: "wicked deeds".

1 hour ago, Oleksandr said:

Rereading BoS, i actually started to wonder about this... In 466 there is separate modifiers for Non-Berroc Loyalist and Berroc Loyalist (which imply there are not loyal ones too, there at least 3 chances for them to turn neutral, however small...), and later +15 ensure result "Skirmished with Saxons as they tried to flee across your territory", instead of fighting against Aurelius. In 467 Berrocs has -10, which means, IIUK, they have 8 out of 20 chanse to get "Saw little or no combat. Stayed Neutral and at home". And if they won't fight Aurelius in this year, they wouldn't in 468 ("Loyalist who was not at Carlion last year -10").

And earlier, they don't have separate modifiers abow standard Loyalist, and only in 1 of 2 battles against Vortimer this modifier is enough to ensure 100% participation. And even earlier, in 450 "Even the Berroc Saxons can trade worried glances, but they will honor their oaths and remain Loyalists".

It seems they wasn't all that happy with Vortigern style of kingship...

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.

2 hours ago, Oleksandr said:

And another question about Berroc, in BoS it stated they are stayed loyal to Vortigern until his defeat. But what if berocc grandfather get 19-20 in 451 (shifting to neutral) and then 19 in 453, turning dissident?

And, is it possibly, when exodus to Brittany start, for grandfather to sent his family (including PK father) there, and stay behind, supporting Vortimer rebelion?

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?

2 hours ago, Oleksandr said:

BTW, i wanted to ask, are Berrocs are exclusively literally saxon, or can they have subtypes from "saxons!" book?🧐 aforementioned jutes as example.

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.

2 hours ago, Mugen said:

You're right. I put "modified" because I thought some events could change your die even if it was under 20, but I can't find any...

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.

1 hour ago, Mugen said:

The rule is simple : a critical occurs if your modified die equals your skill value, or if that modified roll is superior or equal to 20.

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."

19 hours ago, Beowulf said:

That is how I played it, but there were grumbles among the knights at the table.  They insisted that a critical "always hits".  i have reviewed the rules and feel like this is the correct call.  So, the question is...was it the right call?

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. 

42 minutes ago, Oleksandr said:

In KAP standard composition is 1/3 cavalry at most.

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.

14 minutes ago, Oleksandr said:

Yup, i just checked it, regional modifiers are directly after cultural/religius, and wording are as Hzark10 said. (beside, modifiers for aforementioned cultures and regions aren't identical. In fact, aquitanian's partly cancel each other out😃 )

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.) 

2 hours ago, Tizun Thane said:

My PK tricked Sangnoir anyway... They lured him outside, and the more discreet knight stole the horse. 

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.

46 minutes ago, Oleksandr said:

I again discussed aforementioned discrepancy with my historan friend, he recommended to read Hans Delbrück, and said that in many medieval battles infantry played more support role, like guarding camp/baggage train and the like. With some notable exceptions, mentioned above. He also said that perception of medieval warfare heavily warped by memory of 18th century, were conscripted peasant became basis of militaries, as opposed to middle and upper classes as it was earlier.

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.

43 minutes ago, Oleksandr said:

It understandable, and, in fact, interesting addition to the game. What made me worried was thought, if such changes was made for Cymri modifier, how legal would be cultural variations from other old books?

Specific example i had in mind, community of loyalist jutes living in Logres and having wotanism version of "odinism: Tyr", combining cultural, religious and regional modifiers. (this combo seems interesting from both roleplaying and min-maxing standpoint 😃)

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.

5 hours ago, Oleksandr said:

The thing is, new regional modifiers (mostly) correspond to old Cymri variations, yet it stated that now they apply to any culture living in region. Tat quite a big difference...

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?

3 hours ago, Oleksandr said:

About lance sizes in wiki, rest, if i remember correctly, in wiki too +i consulted with my friend, historian-medievalist.

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:

On 11/25/2022 at 10:24 AM, Oleksandr said:

in the beginning of High Middle Age - golden age of knighthood - armies consisted almost exclusively from cavalry, knights and mounted sergeants, with dismounted cavalry playing infantry role if required.

Claiming that there was no actual infantry in the High Medieval battles. This is clearly, obviously wrong based on the historical record.

21 minutes ago, Ali the Helering said:

I have to agree with Morien - the idea that HMA armies were even predominantly cavalry is incorrect.  They may have been on extremely rare occasions, but I cannot recall any battle when a western European army was in that situation, nor Russian, Polish or Byzantine.  The only army where I think it might have been true is the Kingdom of HUngary, but again I am away from my books....

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. 

2 hours ago, Oleksandr said:

"Dictatorship" of plutocratic males? Try dictatorship of aristocratic females 🙄

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.

1 hour ago, Oleksandr said:

It was stated that different edition of the game are compatible, yet it seems that BoKaL completely replace various Cymri cultural modifiers (from 4th edition corebook) with regional modifiers.

What with all this cultural and religious variations from region books?

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.