Discussion about battle skill

[Luxus]

Jason kindly answered to a question about armor in battle:

 I found this answer very surprising, and it raises several other questions:

- Why armor doesn't protect in battles but it does in melee? I find this strange because what is battle but several melees that are solved by using single skill?

- I find it very odd that armoured fighters don't have an advantage in battle, usually wearing armor that protects makes it easier for a fighter to survive a battle?

- I still suppose those injuries in battle are sustained by fighting, by getting hit by an axe for example. But I can't understand why armour doesn't protect against those injuries?

- Realism: What is the point of fielding armoured troops in mass battles with armour if the armour doesn't make it more likely to survive the battle? Wouldn't it be cheaper to send everyone to battle without armour, the casualties would be the same anyway?

 

[Bill the barbarian]

 

 

52 minutes ago, Luxus said:

- Why armor doesn't protect in battles but it does in melee? I find this strange because what is battle but several melees that are solved by using single skill?

So again welcome, don''t feed the grognards They don't bite but can hurt your feelings with their pretensions.
Me, a grognard, No, never, not me.. . So...

I am going to guess here Luxus, So bear with me.

Battle may be a series of melees. but being dressed for the melee is what one wants to do. If your in the skirmish line where speed and the ability to whip a sling above your head are your skill sets, plate armour is not going to help and might will get you killed when your group follows orders and wheels around left at the double? Your trying to keep up and tripping over the weight of your gear as your friends wearing a helm and a Linothorax cuirass are easily outpacing.you. Remember, you do not have to run faster than the Lunar Chariots. just faster than Luxus, Yeah but don't he shine real nice in the sun? :) 

Another way of looking at it, one can succeed in battle by being a good tactician and wearing what he need on the field of battle to suits the needs of his unit, Whether that be plate for a heavy infantry or light linothorax for the agile skirmisher. Each will  have his or her place in battle and their own chances to provide victory for all.

David was a light skirmisher when he brought down Goliath (another sword and sandal epic battle with melees thrown in.)

Cheers

[PhilHibbs]

If you're wearing more armour, you are probably taking more risks? I might rule half armour.

Edited June 27, 2019 by PhilHibbs

[Sumath]

1 hour ago, Luxus said:

Why armor doesn't protect in battles but it does in melee? I find this strange because what is battle but several melees that are solved by using single skill?

- I find it very odd that armoured fighters don't have an advantage in battle, usually wearing armor that protects makes it easier for a fighter to survive a battle?

- I still suppose those injuries in battle are sustained by fighting, by getting hit by an axe for example. But I can't understand why armour doesn't protect against those injuries?

Battle is an abstraction of melee, so the damage you take using the Battle skill is also an abstraction (otherwise, why not use your melee skills?). It's not supposed to perfectly align with the Runequest combat system, but to approximate what happened to you in a large-scale battle.

Now, that's something that is as much about luck and chance as it is about how much armour you are wearing. For example, your location on a battlefield will be much more decisive in how much damage you take than what armour you're wearing. An unarmoured peltast at the side of the battlefield may never come under fire or be engaged in melee. An armoured swordsman may be put into the thick of the fight where they are unlikely to escape unscathed.

What's more, wearing heavy armour on a muddy battlefield amidst a throng of moving bodies, horses, chariots etc can be as much of a liability as an advantage - it makes you slower and more easily fatigued even whilst it affords you protection. Those with less armour have less protection but will generally be more mobile and will more quickly recover their energy levels than their armoured counterparts. RQIII used to track things like fatigue and RQG still imposes penalties to Dodge etc from ENC, but in general RQG combat doesn't overly concern itself with these things because most melees are too short to bother with it. Battles, on the other hand, can last hours or days.

[Austin]

I think of it similarly to Sumath; if you fail your Battle roll, that's basically like saying you took a crit in one of the melees involved. So, no armor because that's the biggest, nastiest blow you took during the fighting--smaller ones are probably patched up by the end of the scene.

The Battle skill seems intended more for a narrative perspective, not a realism one, in this usage.

[albinoboo]

Normal combat is about individual action, battle is is different skill set. If you don't keep your place in the shieldwall, your armour won't count because you will be overwhelmed by your opponents. Unless you are a demigod or near status, you have battle in formation or pay the price.

[PhilHibbs]

27 minutes ago, albinoboo said:

Normal combat is about individual action, battle is is different skill set. If you don't keep your place in the shieldwall, your armour won't count because you will be overwhelmed by your opponents.

But someone naked (or wearing normal clothes) in the shield wall will be more likely to get hurt than someone of similar skill in armour in the shield wall.

[albinoboo]

30 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

But someone naked (or wearing normal clothes) in the shield wall will be more likely to get hurt than someone of similar skill in armour in the shield wall.

The whole point is that you are fighting in formation with people similarly equipped. If you are the only person in the shieldwall naked, people either side of you increase their chance of getting killed because you have less protection. Skirmishers don't wear full armour but the shieldwall does. If you don't have the equipment for the job, you will used in a different unit. The battle roll is an abstraction of unit combat and that requires the assumption of basic competence on behalf of the commanders. It's not perfect but this is an RPG, not a wargame.

Edited June 27, 2019 by albinoboo
Spelling

[Sumath]

15 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

But someone naked (or wearing normal clothes) in the shield wall will be more likely to get hurt than someone of similar skill in armour in the shield wall.

All things being equal this might be true. But I'm sure you can imagine plenty of battlefield scenarios where a lack of encumbrance might provide a distinct advantage too. Besides, all things aren't equal when using the Battle skill. What if the naked warrior's phalanx never actually gets to engage in melee? What if the armoured warrior's phalanx gets flanked?

In a standard RQG melee, a player makes second-by-second decisions as to what their character does in combat. In battles, combatants fight as part of a large force under someone's command - warriors go and do what they are instructed to do, so they have limited autonomy over where they stand in relation to the enemy, whether they can retreat, what weapons they bring to bear etc. 

The other thing about Battle is that it is summarising all the environmental factors, decisions, actions and dice rolls that would happen if you were mad enough to try to play out an entire battle with melee skill rolls and individual decision-making by hundreds of combatants. It isn't just about rolling to see how well you fought or defended (or what bounced off your armour), but how fortunate you were, how cunning, how tactically adept, how much attention you were given by the enemy, whether you ended up at a split second in the path of that runaway chariot etc.

A battle can be a free-for-all. You might go into a battle with the best armour, the most potent magic and the greatest skill of any warrior on the field, but then get singled out by the enemy as a threat and overwhelmed by vast numbers. It's a distinct possibility.

For me, the Battle skill represents your nous to survive a battlefield, negotiate its challenges and take advantage of its opportunities. Armour is not really a big factor.

[jajagappa]

11 hours ago, Luxus said:

- Why armor doesn't protect in battles but it does in melee? I find this strange because what is battle but several melees that are solved by using single skill?

As others have noted, Battle is an abstraction of a large scale event. It might abstract anything from a series of melees to one or two days of fighting between large armies. Within a battle scene, there is a lot more going on than just the single individual fighting a few foes. There are skirmishers that you don't see raining arrows or other missiles down upon you. There's your battle formation staying intact or breaking. There are bands of warriors striking at your flanks or rear while you are focused on other fighters. There are cavalry charges bearing down upon you, or chariot drivers running through your unit. 

Somewhere in all that, your armor failed or did not protect you. Maybe you were encased enough that you didn't see and couldn't get out of the way of the bison riders charging in. 

4 hours ago, Sumath said:

the Battle skill represents your nous to survive a battlefield, negotiate its challenges and take advantage of its opportunities. Armour is not really a big factor.

Exactly.

[Akhôrahil]

12 hours ago, Luxus said:

Jason kindly answered to a question about armor in battle:

 I found this answer very surprising, and it raises several other questions:

- Why armor doesn't protect in battles but it does in melee? I find this strange because what is battle but several melees that are solved by using single skill?

- I find it very odd that armoured fighters don't have an advantage in battle, usually wearing armor that protects makes it easier for a fighter to survive a battle?

- I still suppose those injuries in battle are sustained by fighting, by getting hit by an axe for example. But I can't understand why armour doesn't protect against those injuries?

- Realism: What is the point of fielding armoured troops in mass battles with armour if the armour doesn't make it more likely to survive the battle? Wouldn't it be cheaper to send everyone to battle without armour, the casualties would be the same anyway?

 

I'm completely in favour of this ruling, and it was what I expected. Obviously armor helps a lot, but that's already been taken into consideration - if you're a hoplite, you're sent into the middle of the churn of the battle, because you have the staying power. Being there in your armor is what's expected of you! Meanwhile, the linen-armoured skirmisher with his wicker shield doesn't charge the enemy front - he instead avoids getting hurt through mobility and being on the outside (and if he has to flee, he's actually in better shape than the hoplite). If you're hurt in battle, it's not just because a weapon made contact with your armour - it's because in spite of unit tactics, someone got an injuring attack in on you in this highly abstracted system.

[Julian Lord]

I just used my own far crunchier rules, and would do so again -- but the uphill design & concept & applied maths & information management work to get such things functioning as much like standard RuneQuest combat as possible without violating balance and especially without removing game focus from the PCs and even more *especially* ensuring that it all still fells like a RPG not a miniatures wargame is rather daunting.

I did manage to get a proof-of-concept version workable enough for gaming, but it was still in need of an extensive streamlining pass for rules and text editing. Nowhere even close to near being publishable.

[Bill the barbarian]

 

So Luxus, as promised... so delivered! What do ya think?

15 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

If you're wearing more armour, you are probably taking more risks? I might rule half armour.

Sorry Phil, can't agree for a change. Work (which combat is) is a question of PPE. Personal Protective Equipment. Not any PPE, but the correct PPE for the job as a laid out above in my post. Wearing the wrong PPE or PPE that is not compatible with all aspects of ones job CAN (not will but can) lead to near misses, injuries and all the way to up fatalities in the wrong circumstances. the Orlanthi battle groups will agree with your thinking of wear what you can afford or own. But I am sure more ordered and unfortunately usually victorious in the end battle groupings of the Yelmalians or the Lunars wold be more in line with sections of battle groups wearing specialized armour to suit the duties assigned to said section 

Hmm seems I don'[t disagree after all, just a different cultural view to incorporate into my thinking. imo!

15 hours ago, Sumath said:

Battle is an abstraction of melee, so the damage you take using the Battle skill is also an abstraction (otherwise, why not use your melee skills?). It's not supposed to perfectly align with the Runequest combat system, but to approximate what happened to you in a large-scale battle.

Not much need in quoting everything you said You are looking at the problem in a little bit of a different way to moi but it all sounds like it's compatible with my thought tangentially.

Cheers

 

11 hours ago, albinoboo said:

Normal combat is about individual action, battle is is different skill set. If you don't keep your place in the shieldwall, your armour won't count because you will be overwhelmed by your opponents. Unless you are a demigod or near status, you have battle in formation or pay the price.

albinoboo does not say much but zero disagreement with anything he did say! As usual!

 

5 hours ago, jajagappa said:

 Somewhere in all that, your armor failed or did not protect you. Maybe you were encased enough that you didn't see and couldn't get out of the way of the bison riders charging in. 

10 hours ago, Sumath said:

and jajagappa well he is someone you should pay attention to.

4 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

I'm completely in favour of this ruling, and it was what I expected.

and this gent is of the same mind as me, the rule is good as is. (edited because it had become badly mangled in spell check and made no sense, sorry. works now!) 

Combine Albinoboo's comments with Sumath's and all who agreed with everyone else note the tangents the thought took (they are my favourite part) and add my thoughts to the mix and I am satisfied myself. And hell, with my caveats most definitely throw in PhHibbs. We could all be wrong canonically but I am sure it will work or at least be fun. Are we right, can't say, Maybe someone will chime in or we can wait for Jason's official response but where would the MGF (maximum game fun) be in waiting?

Edited June 27, 2019 by Bill the barbarian

[Ian Absentia]

Beating this analogy into the ground...

1 hour ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Work (which combat is) is a question of PPE. Personal Protective Equipment. Not any PPE, but the correct PPE for the job as a laid out above in my post. Wearing the wrong PPE or PPE that is not compatible with all aspects of ones job CAN (not will but can) lead to near misses, injuries and all the way to up fatalities in the wrong circumstances. the Orlanthi battle groups will agree with your thinking of wear what you can afford or own. But I am sure more ordered and unfortunately usually victorious in the end battle groupings of the Yelmalians or the Lunars wold be more in line with sections of battle groups wearing specialized armour to suit the duties assigned to said section 

Individual combat skills and equipment = PPE and task goals

Battle skill = HASP and task management

Ugh.  But, yeah, Battle skill is management of suites of combat variables as a whole.  It's more of a squad-level tactical and strategic skill than a directly oppositional combat ability.

!i!

[Bill the barbarian]

12 minutes ago, Ian Absentia said:

Individual combat skills and equipment = PPE and task goals

Battle skill = HASP and task management

goddam, man! I was looking at it from a sheerly labour oriented side I guess but not understanding a ton o management speak I just googled all that it it sounds like we are on the same wavelength:)

I hate to break a lovely game like RQ down to mechanics but it does help me to grasp, it parse it and than try to narrate it back with the wonder re-infused.

cheers

Edited June 27, 2019 by Bill the barbarian

[Ian Absentia]

38 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

I hate to break a lovely game like RQ down to mechanics...

Nah, if that was truly a worry, we'd be having this discussion in the HeroQuest forum. 🤐  RQ is all about the mechanics.  Well, mostly.

!i!

Edited June 27, 2019 by Ian Absentia

[Bill the barbarian]

9 minutes ago, Ian Absentia said:

Nah, if that was truly a worry, we'd be having this discussion in the HeroQuest forum. 🤐  RQ is all about the mechanics.  Well, mostly.

 

Fair enough!

[g33k]

32 minutes ago, Ian Absentia said:

... It's more of a squad-level tactical and strategic skill ...

I'd say "squad-and-up" level... mostly, that is!

I also allow a "Battle" roll on an individual level, to account for many combat-relevant but not weapon-specific issues.

For example:

• In a complex environment, one person or the other might be more-adept at handling uneven terrain; with a successful Battle roll, the Adventurer may be able to know if they'd get any advantage or disadvantage fighting with more complex footing, or less complex.
• If a foe is moving around in a fight, are they just pursuing a highly-mobile combat style, looking for any advantage?  Or is there a method to their madness, some agenda they are trying to maneuver toward or away from?
• In a pursuit, does the "escaping foe" they are pursuing actually seem to be leading them into a trap?
• In a pursuit, does the "pursuing" foe actually seem to be chasing them into a trap?
• Various sorts of "situational awareness" things involving combat above the 1:1 scale (at 1:1, I'd probably call for a Scan roll instead) -- is an ambush likely/imminent?  Has a general melee led me to a disadvantaged/outnumbered/etc situation?  Or does my side have an advantage we could combine to better exploit?

None of which are really your "Broadsword" skill, are they?

It's knowing ABOUT fighting -- a knowlege skill -- rather than having the skills/muscle-memory/etc to actually fight.  And as others have said (above) that includes knowing things like to keep your peltasts lightly-armored and mobile, not using them as heavy infantry; using your heavy infantry in the thick of the fray, not as mobile guerilla/harassers; etc.

 

[Akhôrahil]

1 hour ago, Ian Absentia said:

Ugh.  But, yeah, Battle skill is management of suites of combat variables as a whole.  It's more of a squad-level tactical and strategic skill than a directly oppositional combat ability.

Not even just that - it's about surviving a battle, which is about a lot more than your fighting prowess. It's situational awareness, tricks of the trade, knowing when to run and when to push an attack.

Imagine a veteran in any war, someone who really knows his stuff. You think what makes him a survivor is that he has the highest weapon skills? Hardly! He's just seen enough to know what to expect. 

[Bill the barbarian]

1 minute ago, Akhôrahil said:

Imagine a veteran in any war, someone who really knows his stuff. You think what makes him a survivor is that he has the highest weapon skills? Hardly! He's just seen enough to know what to expect. 

Cool, that makes me think Ernest Borgnine in All Quiet on the Western Front. He could find a meal in 1918 for his wards when there was none to be found. Always had a smoke and a good word for a new recruit who was have a shitty time of it. Knew how to shoot but was like another soldier cept, he knew when it was time to use the toilet and when it was time to sleep. 

[Lordabdul]

6 hours ago, Julian Lord said:

I did manage to get a proof-of-concept version workable enough for gaming, but it was still in need of an extensive streamlining pass for rules and text editing. Nowhere even close to near being publishable.

It might be not publishable but it might be shareable in case you want feedback? I'd love to take a peek at what you have! I started taking a few notes for the kind of house rules I might want there (since I'm planning an 11L campaign, which features big battles). My initial idea was to make up rules where the Battle skill gets combined with other skills (including weapon or defense skills) so that a battle is resolved in a couple to a handful rolls where players can choose what their characters did (followed orders, rushed forward, stayed back, etc.) which in turn lets them take risks (or not) and figure out how that went (which could drive reputation gains and other in-game consequences).

I generally find my players are more engaged with a scene if they can at least choose between a couple options, and even better if there's more than 1 step so they can push their luck or back down. Determining how a character did in a battle with just a single fixed roll (Battle skill) or maybe 2 rolls (if you augment it) is probably going to frustrate my players... "I'll try to be part of the flanking party" "OK, roll Battle" "...but I'll stick close to Jarstak Bristle-Beard to protect him" "OK, roll Battle", "...and I'll..." "just roll Battle!".

[Julian Lord]

3 hours ago, lordabdul said:

It might be not publishable but it might be shareable in case you want feedback?

Sorry, it's not even at that stage yet. Some of it is still only in my head.

[albinoboo]

I think it is important to remember that the battlefield is full of magic not just weapons. If you get hit by disruption 4 your armour won't matter. What armour is going to protect you from the Crater Makers, The Crimson Bat or The Cannon Cult, if the Cannon Cult is still cannon (been waiting for years for an excuse for that, sorry). Fundamentally is up to the GM to make the battle roll into an event. Say something like:

We formed the shieldwall, we sang the paean to Orlanth the Victorious. The armies  voices raised as one until we heard the the thunder of Orlanth in our hearts. 

Now ask for the battles roll from each PC. The GM must describe the result in terms of the outcome of the battle that they want. So a successful battle roll for a PC on the winning side  would tell how they broke the Lunar line, a failed roll would describe the wound happening while the Lunar line broke. A successful roll on the losing side would mean an ordered retreat, an unsuccessful roll would means a wound in the rout and playing dead on the battlefield.  

 

[Julian Lord]

7 hours ago, albinoboo said:

I think it is important to remember that the battlefield is full of magic not just weapons. If you get hit by disruption 4 your armour won't matter. What armour is going to protect you from the Crater Makers, The Crimson Bat or The Cannon Cult, if the Cannon Cult is still cannon (been waiting for years for an excuse for that, sorry). Fundamentally is up to the GM to make the battle roll into an event. Say something like:

We formed the shieldwall, we sang the paean to Orlanth the Victorious. The armies  voices raised as one until we heard the the thunder of Orlanth in our hearts. 

Now ask for the battles roll from each PC. The GM must describe the result in terms of the outcome of the battle that they want. So a successful battle roll for a PC on the winning side  would tell how they broke the Lunar line, a failed roll would describe the wound happening while the Lunar line broke. A successful roll on the losing side would mean an ordered retreat, an unsuccessful roll would means a wound in the rout and playing dead on the battlefield.  

That's a great description of the sort of thing Greg wanted in his own design goals.

[Ochoa]

Now to integrate this with the  updated Warhamster rules surely included in the upcoming RGG!