Wars of the Roses English

grompix
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 8:25 am

Wars of the Roses English

Postby grompix » Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:28 pm

I have just bought the Swordpoint rules and medieval lists having been impressed with what I've seen of the rule-set online. Not had a chance to play a game yet though. I have quite a large 28mm WotR collection which I hope will work OK with the Swordpoint rules.
I notice in the Medieval army list for WotR (Page 42) it says Mounted men-at-arms carry shields - now either this is a typo or perhaps a rule device to make this cavalry arm more defensible as clearly they didn't , at this period, carry shields.
I'm guessing it's a typo as the Burgundian army on the next page lists knights (essentially the same troop type) as not having shields.
I notice that Retinue archers are also classed as shielded in the WotR list. I know they sometimes carried a small buckler which may have been of some meagre defence in a knife-fight but since English mercenary longbowmen in the Burgundian list don't have it I'm assuming another typo perhaps?
Not having played the rules yet, I wonder if anyone can clear this up for me.
Many thanks in anticipation.
Chris ;)

MartinG
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 8:48 am

Re: Wars of the Roses English

Postby MartinG » Sun Aug 27, 2017 1:04 pm

The men-at-arms shield sis definitely a typo. I don't have access to the files at the moment but I think the retinue archers may be meant to have a buckler, in the rules this is the same as a shield for simplicity. I'll have a look when I'm back at work next week.
"No one ever achieved anything without making a few mistakes along the way"

grompix
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 8:25 am

Re: Wars of the Roses English

Postby grompix » Tue Aug 29, 2017 2:01 pm

Thanks for that Martin. I thought it might be a typo. Not convinced about the buckler being as good as a 'proper' shield though but I have yet to play the rules to see how it all pans out. I must admit I am quite impressed with the mechanics and concepts behind the design of this rule-system as a whole.
Chris ;)

strontiumdog
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:31 am

Re: Wars of the Roses English

Postby strontiumdog » Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:36 am

In the Wars of the Roses list under Retinue Foot it states that "Men-at-Arms or Billmen may form Combined Units with Longbowmen". Should this be Mixed Order instead, as in Combined Units archers are at the rear while in Mixed Order they are in the front, which is how they fought?

Cheers,
Dog.

MartinG
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 8:48 am

Re: Wars of the Roses English

Postby MartinG » Mon Sep 25, 2017 9:01 am

Yes it should be mixed order.
"No one ever achieved anything without making a few mistakes along the way"

strontiumdog
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:31 am

Re: Wars of the Roses English

Postby strontiumdog » Mon Sep 25, 2017 9:05 am

Cheers :)

Sapper
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon May 22, 2017 1:08 pm

Re: Wars of the Roses English

Postby Sapper » Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:19 pm

BTW Martin, the stats for cannon are missing from the WOTR list.

Paul7926
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2017 8:56 am

Re: Wars of the Roses English

Postby Paul7926 » Mon Nov 13, 2017 11:02 am

I've just picked up the rules and army list. I'd assumed that for WotR we just use the generic 'cannon' that is provided on other pages?

MartinG
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 8:48 am

Re: Wars of the Roses English

Postby MartinG » Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:27 am

Yes that is correct
"No one ever achieved anything without making a few mistakes along the way"


Return to “Medieval Armies”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest