Hi
I enjoyed m first try out of the rules
The game ended in a draw but I wasn't sure about how I played the cavalry rules
Cavalry phase occurs before movement and fights
So is the cavalry sequence completed in it's entirety before the other phases?
And is the 5 or 6 to remove @ unit after a regular fight has been conducted
I played it so that cavalry created a fight as normal, then 5 or 6 for a kill followed & then moved on to the rest o& the sequence , which in my game meant the ward was attacked in the fight phase as well as by the cavalry earlier
Thanks
James
My recommendation is that you imagine the game suddenly freezing. This is a vey important concept in BB.
Similar to those Marvel films when everything stops.
Every single figure, arrow and general just stops and is caught mid action/shout/step.
Then
1.Roll to see if cavalry arrive.
2. Place cavalry on your base edge
3. Send them forwards into/against an enemy ward not within ditch, hedge, builds or steep hill.
4.The cavalry can pass through an own ward but not through and beyond an opponent ward.
5. Work out the fight between the cavalry and the target ward.
6.The fight will include saving rolls, fall back and any unit destroyed (forever) by the winner applying a 5,6 roll. Notice that the 5,6 roll only applies to fights involving cavalry. It is not applied in "normal" fights.
7. The cavalry leave the table as either destroyed or puffed , losing a half base.
8. Any damage and casualties inflicted on a target ward stay in place as the game unfreezes and continues. Thus a target ward can be hit more times in the same game turn.
Only now is the battle unfrozen. All the figures can move , shoot and do their own fights.
Hope that helps. Try it out and let the group know how dangerous/efectve you find cavalry. Opinions are divided. :)
martin
I'm not sure of the answer to this as I haven't played since the Weekender. Can there be any cavalry on cavalry clashes? I can't recall reading about any major cavalry clashes. We're there any of note?
The rules do not allow for cavalry on cavalry fights.
This is because cavalry were not often used and when used were supposed to smash the enemy.
At least that is what Lord Audley was convinced of? :)
martin
Hi Martin
Thanks for the prompt and clear response
I played it broadly correct I think
There were 2 cavalry charges in the game
One with just 1 household unit which was ineffective
The other with 1 household and 2 retinue units (3 can attack in one zone?) lost the fight but killed the household foot unit on 5/6 roll. Later in the turn the zone was attacked and had to fall back In part because of the damage caused by the cavalry which seemed pretty accurate.
Due to terrain placement there was only really one row of zones that cavalry could properly operate in which seemed
fair enough
Later in the game with the same enemy ward fairly battered the cavalry failed to arrive for the coup de gras
Frustrating but very plausible (maybe tired, losses too great, treachery, off looting etc)
Cheers
Thanks for the feedback.
Sounds like they acted historically.
Cavalry are a gamble. Sometimes really good but often not so good. As it should be.
martin
There was one major cavalry clash. Good King Richard's mounted knights attacked Henry Tudor's bodyguard at Bosworth. We know the bodyguard was mounted as Richard is recorded as unhorsing one of them. Stanley's charge was mounted too I'm sure otherwise Richard's knights would have either ridden it down or pulled back rather than being overwhelmed as they actually were.
The rules as they stand would need some kind of house amendment to reflect this if you want to refight Bosworth and I'd be curious to hear any suggestions but I don't see it as a massive inherent flaw in BB. I haven't played them yet but I liked what I read.
There was no major cavalry on cavalry clash at Bosworth.
Richard with a mass of cavalry (hundreds) "went" for Henry's mounted bodyguard.
Henry was mounted because he was not a part of the battle line.
It was very rare indeed for a general to command a battle by sitting behind the lines on a horse.
In BB, Henry's bodyguard would be 2 bases maximum. Not a major cavalry clash at all.
There is no mention of Stanleys being a mounted force (where on earth did that come from?).
Horses for mounted charges were in the low numbers.
These were not cavalry armies by any stretch of the imagination.
Commanders normally led their troops on foot.
In rare cases they formed up men for a mounted charge.
In fact it is thought that Welsh infantry were the first on the scene, butchering Richard's standard bearer nastily.
martin :)
That's cleared that up.
I'm looking at painting up some Bloody Barons figures later.
Quote from: martin goddard on May 16, 2020, 01:48:50 PM
There was no major cavalry on cavalry clash at Bosworth.
Richard with a mass of cavalry (hundreds) "went" for Henry's mounted bodyguard.
Henry was mounted because he was not a part of the battle line.
It was very rare indeed for a general to command a battle by sitting behind the lines on a horse.
In BB, Henry's bodyguard would be 2 bases maximum. Not a major cavalry clash at all.
There is no mention of Stanleys being a mounted force (where on earth did that come from?).
Horses for mounted charges were in the low numbers.
These were not cavalry armies by any stretch of the imagination.
Commanders normally led their troops on foot.
In rare cases they formed up men for a mounted charge.
In fact it is thought that Welsh infantry were the first on the scene, butchering Richard's standard bearer nastily.
martin :)
Hi Martin
I think for the period it IS quite a major cavalry punch up. There's hundreds of cavalry involved. Tudor's bodyguard wasn't big that's for sure but it was certainly big enough to blunt the charge of hundreds of Yorkist knights. That Tudor had a bodyguard of 80 men tops seems to be the consensus but add that to Richard's numbers and it's not a skirmish.
Source, amongst others including a publication from the Visitors Centre; Paul Murray Kendall "Richard III" chapter on Bosworth Field, appendix note 5.
NB the battle has moved its location since Kendall wrote what is still regarded as the definitive work on Richard but the accounts of it haven't changed and neither has what we know about the composition of the forces.
Cheers, it's always good to discuss Wars of the Roses stuff.
I doff my hat to the size of your book collection Alan. I am sure it is much bigger than mine.
Glad we agree that there was no major cavalry v cavalry clash at Bosworth Alan.
A major cavalry fight would be a lot of cavalry on both sides, not one side with a lot of cavalry only?
If Bosworth is considered as a major cavalry punch up, then Blore Heath would be considered another such major cavalry punch up.
What was your source for the Neville's being a cavalry force?
Anything from the visitors centre must be viewed with some careful consideration. The visitor centre makes great strides to keep the Ambion hill location as a plausible location, for obvious reasons. I went there and discussed it with them.
I don't think it is wise for you to use Kendall as the definitive version for Bosworth if he got the battle in the wrong place. A very basic error I think. The land around the proper (i assume, unless it changes :) ) location is very different indeed from that near Ambion hill.
I have walked both and be assured they are very different Alan. The authors you use may have changed things around a bit to suit their wrong location?
We know very little about the force compositions. By necessity most of it is educated guesswork based on other battles and odds such as the Bridport and Paston documents.
If you do have a source for the number of cavalry, guns, bowmen and billmen that would be useful .
martin
Hello Martin
I take your point but whilst we are not talking Scots Greys versus Napoleon's lancers at Waterloo I think it certainly is a clash with a fair number of cavalry, we can't know for sure but I would guestimate about 80 in Tudor's bodyguard and 250 Yorkist knights, esquires, Knights of the Body etc.
Not really sure what your getting at re Blore Heath. That's not a cavalry battle, it's Lancastrian knights charging prepared infantry and losing badly.
Kendall didn't get Bosworth in the "wrong" place as in he made an error of judgement, he put it in the place where everyone else put it at the time. Nobody had heard of battlefield archaeology. It's the same as somebody in 500 years saying "hey those guys in 2020 didn't know how to travel faster than light therefore all their science must have been wrong." One doesn't necessarily follow the other.
As I said the location moved but the disposition, movements and numbers of troops recorded at the time didn't. I see no difficultly in transposing his version to Fenn Lane. I'd be very loathe to throw out older research just because we think we know better. Kendall's a very scholarly work, well worth a read.
The basics remain the same. Oxford fights Norfolk in a clash of the vanguards and comes off best. Northumberland doesn't move. Richard sees a chance to end it by killing Henry, charges at him, almost kills him but fails and the Stanley's smash into his flank. Richard now fighting against the Stanleys and probably Henry's Welsh as well is separated from his men, driven into the marsh, unhorsed and killed. That can happen at Ambion Hill or Fenn Lane equally well IMO.
We can play around with numbers, troop varieties, positions (I'd put Lord Stanley behind Sir William and possibly place Gilbert Talbot on Oxford's right flank with a small flank guard) but we will never get a definitive answer, battlefield archaeology can only tell us so much and eventually we have to come back to Polydore Vergil etc. Literally your educated logical "guess" is as good as mine. Nevertheless I do feel Richard vs Henry was a cavalry fight and that the Stanleys are most likely to have used the fast moving Cheshire horsemen (described as having red coats at the battle in one source) to slam into Richard's left flank first then follow up with infantry whose pole weapons would be very effective against pinned knights.
I thought the visitors centre was ok, the knight in white armour like a Stars Wars stormtrooper let it down somewhat. It just looked silly. Richard should have been buried in York Minster in my view rather than in a city that "lost" him for 500 years then saw a chance for a quick buck by playing finders keepers. He wanted to build a chantry chapel in York Minster for the repose of his soul, his intent to be buried in York where his son was invested as Prince of Wales was clear enough but that's another story and in Leicester he should stay now. You can't go around disturbing the dead.
I use a variety of sources, they often say different things of course but the Lance and Longbow guys are pretty good. Andrew Boardman is excellent too.
Best wishes
Alan
Good discussion Alan.
Thanks for the time you have taken.
I think it best to agree to disagree.
Dragging it on will not enlighten the other group members I fear.
Shall we leave it there please?
martin
No problem. Nice to discuss it with you.
Hi guys, the real problem is that what we refer to as sources for Bosworth are, at best, second hand or even third hand. They were also almost exclusively written by the winners and they had been carefully vetted by Polydore Vergil decades after the battle at the behest of his Tudor masters. So hardly likely to be a fair trial. That said whether or not there was a massed cavalry battle depends on what you want to believe.
Sorry, but I am a real history cynic.
John
Yes you're right, it is a matter of opinion. It can't be beyond the wit of man to come up with a house rule specifically for Bosworth if, like myself, you believe there is a cavalry action there. Equally its perfectly feasible to play the scenario as written if you take Martin's view of things.
I don't actually think the rules suffer from having no cavalry vs cavalry rules. It would involve tinkering with the whole mechanism and for what? One battle where the definition of "cavalry battle" is disputed? It doesn't seem worth it really.
What I would need for my own and Kendall et al's interpretation is some mechanism whereby assuming the Yorkist knights do not kill Henry they do not disappear from the table for one move, they then fight it out with Stanley's cavalry. If the Yorkists survive they withdraw from the table and Richard survives, the battle continues. Stanley's cavalry could withdraw too as per the rules. Should the Yorkists lose, Richard is killed and the game is over. All that assumes the battle plays out according to history, at least the history that we have been given.
I don't think that is unachievable if careful thought is given to game balance. Hit in flank by a mass of Cheshire horsemen Richard should lose but I want to give him a chance or what's the point in playing?
As with most of these things the victors wrote the history. And later the Victorians meddled with it as well.
Something I've advocated for a long time is that once you purchase a set of rules, they are yours to tinker with as much as you like.
There is no right and wrong, just opinion. Any rules writer has to nail their colours to a last and say 'this is my stance on this subject'. People can agree or disagree. So long as we are nice about it.
Debate is always interesting to read when discussing disputed accounts of something. It's what makes history so interesting.
Not having played the rules as yet.
Martin would normally allow a house rule or two if needed for that game.
Suggestion. Would it not be a case of just adding a factor or two in for being "mounted ???" And other such things ? If the defending force happen to be "Cavalry" of some sort ?
I think that's how Martin would normally handle a situation like that ?
If this is a rare occurrence?
Miles
The problem one has to get over is that cavalry do not stay on the table. In your turn cavalry come onto the table, they fight, they leave. Then your opponent has a go. So the rules are set up to avoid cavalry v cavalry.
To simulate that you might have to offer your opponent the chance to put his cavalry on table at the start of your turn just in case you chose to use your cavalry. Then they could become a legitimate target to be attacked or shot at.
I think I like the rules as they are writ and tinkering with them for something that rarely happened could be seen as over complicating things.
John
If you wanted to have cavalry v cavalry actions, you could allow the use of the cavalry dice pool for 'countercharging.' If one player successfully brings on his cavalry, the other player may roll for his and if successful the cavalry fight each other.
Having only played 1 game solo I'm hardly an expert but re a house rule
1 Side Y cavalry phase , Rolls for cavalry as normal and is successful so the cavalry arrive
2 side L , if they have cavalry announces their wish to countercharge
3 Roll a D6, success depending on how likely you think a cavalry melee is historically. So for Bosworth you could make it 4,5,6?
4 Non phasing player, if step 3 was successful then rolls for cavalry as if it was his phase, if he is successful There is a cavalry V cavalry fight In the ward instead of a cavalry v inf fight
5 The fight is conducted as normal with both sides cavalry, after the fight if any survive, they leave the board as normalWith the chance to return later, dice permitting
6 only one countercharge attempt allowed per game.
I think that's a good idea for this one game if you are on the side of thinking that there was a cavalry battle. I'd maybe not even have the 1D6 roll, skipping that step.
Having one off special rules like this are fine to represent unique aspects of certain battles. Between consenting adults is fine. The common rule is to play nice, be nice to each other and to take turns making a cup of tea.
I f memory serves I think the only cavalry v. cavalry action of any significance was when Richard III charged Henry Vii and then the Stanleys intervened. Maybe give Henry his own base with a single base of cavalry in support?