Crecy!

[shall]

lawrenceg wrote:
Quote:

Uphill behind stakes is a non starter

On my reference sheet "uphill" and "foot defending FF" are both the same + so I assume you can't count both for ++.

I thought this meant you could count both for ++, with those POA's that are mutually exclusive being listed in the 'Any one of...' section...

You can't but the stakes also cancel out the lancers + at impact

Si

[lawrenceg]

lawrenceg wrote:
Quote:

Uphill behind stakes is a non starter

On my reference sheet "uphill" and "foot defending FF" are both the same + so I assume you can't count both for ++.

I thought this meant you could count both for ++, with those POA's that are mutually exclusive being listed in the 'Any one of...' section...

You can't but the stakes also cancel out the lancers + at impact

Si

So uphill behind stakes is the same as on level ground behind stakes.

The bottom line is that the longbowmen need stakes or non-open ground to feel confident. Uphill in the open is quite risky and flat ground in the open is a likely win for the knights. This seems historically correct.


While we're on the subject of POA's, I suggest moving the Impact POA for "charging flank or rear ++ regardless of other factors" to the top of the Impact table. It would save us absent minded beginners some time.

[rbodleyscott]

So uphill behind stakes is the same as on level ground behind stakes.

Absolutely correct, I just got carried away. Previous post edited to avoid confusing people further.

[shall]

shall wrote:

You can't but the stakes also cancel out the lancers + at impact

Si

So uphill behind stakes is the same as on level ground behind stakes.

Correct but uphill alone is not quite as good as behind stakes

Si