*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 09:47:49 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Donate

We Appreciate Your Support

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 1686453
  • Total Topics: 118100
  • Online Today: 811
  • Online Ever: 2235
  • (October 29, 2023, 12:32:45 AM)
Users Online

Recent

Author Topic: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game #2 (page 4), lotsa pics!  (Read 9355 times)

Offline Captain Blood

  • Global Moderator
  • Elder God
  • Posts: 19305
Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game #2 (page 4), lotsa pics!
« on: September 27, 2020, 12:32:00 PM »
Having tried out an inaugural game of 'NMTBH' at Eric the Shed’s on Tuesday, I decided to play a solo game yesterday, just to see if I’d understood / remembered everything. (I hadn’t!)

The rules are blissfully short and the core mechanics (moving, shooting, melee, morale check) feel very familiar from various other rule sets, and pleasingly simple.
But considering they’re only a few pages long, the rules also contain a fair few tricky and nuanced points which can be difficult (for me anyway) to grasp. Like the relationship between how many orders a leader has, what he can do with them, and how those translate into actions for himself and / or the units in his ward - particularly where a unit may be composed of more than one unit, which in turn can do different things!

There are also several nitsy-bitsy little rules that you only get to remember by playing repeatedly – like when you can makes re-roll and for which dice results in which circumstances; how many ranks or part-ranks can fight in a particular situation; various pluses for this or minuses for that; when you do and don’t test morale, and so on. There’s actually a surprising amount of this sort of detail, making quite a mound of difficult bits and pieces to remember to start with. I’m sure they’ll stick after a few games though.

I thought a small game (72 points per side, plus leaders, split into just two wards) would be a good test of how much I’d taken on board.
That gives about 60 figures per side – basically four fighting units (which yields four ‘army morale tokens’ to each side), plus a couple of skirmish units each.
I deliberately picked different types of units to see how they fared.
 
120 figures is about a third of my WOTR collection - I’ve been collecting, kitbashing, and painting it since Michael Perry’s first box of brilliant WOTR plastics hit the scene over 10 years ago. (If you've got a spare few hours, you can view the entire project thread here: https://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=40936.0 lol)
Unfortunately, most of the collection isn’t neatly organised into twelves of anything.
For various home-brew rules, I’d built and organised my factions (representing local lordlings from my home area, plus a couple of historical WOTR bigwigs) into mixed retinues (each roughly 20 – 25 strong) of bills, bows, men at arms, and cavalry. So difficult to form neat, uniform liveried units of twelve bills or bows out of that. So I’ve had to mix up some different liveries from different lords to form units for this (which is probably historically what happened TBH).

Clearly I’m going to have to make up and paint yet more :D

Here’s the bat-rep – along with the questions that cropped up as I went through the game.
If you know the answers, please do reply below!
(I will also ask on the NMTBH Fb page, and I know FAQs are imminent, which might answer some of these. Or it may be that I just missed info that’s already there!)


The battlefield is fairly open – no hills, a couple of ponds and spinneys, but with fields, hedges and buildings.
Now thanks to ‘disarray’ every time you cross a hedge or stream, I appreciate these rules are really designed for a fairly open field battle (well, skirmish). Personally though, I don’t find that very visually (or tactically) interesting as a wargame. Nor do I think it’s particularly true to many WOTR encounters, where there is much historical record of bloody fighting amongst hedgerows, ditches, sunken lanes, streams, bridges and so on. That sort of setting seems to me to be one defining aspect of this particular conflict in the bucolic English countryside. A WOTR game fought on a fairly featureless grassy steppe, just doesn’t seem right to me, especially when we know England was very much more densely wooded and forested 500 years ago.
But I digress…  :)


Here’s the table looking along the Lancastrian line (to the left)




On the right of the Lancastrian line, a ‘block’ of retinue bills and bows (two conjoined companies) under Sir Gilbert Foyle of Crowhurst. That block comprises the Right Ward.




Now looking from the left of the Lancastrian line, the Main Ward under Sir Roger de Brassey of Tandridge consists of: A company of retinue archers; a field piece; Sir Rog and his faithful mastiff; a skirmishing band of Milanese handgunners; and a company of men-at-arms in full harness.




(Point to note – although the skirmish and artillery units are part of the ward and can be ordered by the leader of that ward, they also operate independently on their own initiative when their activation card is turned, so they’re effectively separate. So you don’t need to worry about keeping them within the command radius of their notional leader (a mistake I made in both this game and the first one I played!)

Over to the Yorkist line…




On the Yorkist right flank, the Right Ward under Sir Robert Tenchley of Staffhurst, consists of a unit of retinue bills, plus a block of retinue bills and bows (two companies).




The Yorkist Main Ward (on their left) led by Richard of Gloucester, has a company of mounted knights, and then the semi-detached skirmishers: a band of Flemish crossbowmen, and a field piece.
(It’s the main ward because although it’s much smaller numerically, Duke Richard is very much more important than mere Sir Robert Tenchley!)




Point to note: I’ve seen several NMTBH army lists where people are costing artillery and crew at six points. But the rules say that the gun itself is six points and the artillerymen are one point apiece - which would make the cost of a field piece nine points not six. (And nine is what it says on the QRS on the back of the rules).
Worth remembering, because guns are not particularly effective, can blow up fairly easily, but are more costly than skirmishers. They do have a 30" range of course, as opposed to 12", and hits from guns can't be saved...


The game commences with two rounds of the manoeuvre phase, where the two forces move forward, unit by unit, one side at a time, and shape up towards each other.
This phase is ended when the Lancastrian gun opens up, although to no effect. The game then switches to card-driven activation of units…

The Yorkist Right Ward have used their manoeuvre phase to advance over the hedges into the fields in front of them, picking up ‘disarray’ tokens for their trouble.




Meanwhile, on the Lancastrian left, the Milanese handguns have scampered through the wood, skirted the pond, and can start firing over the hedge at the unit of Yorkist bills in the hayfield in front of them.




The men-at-arms, under Sir Roger de Brassey, advance around the right hand side of the wood.




Sir Gilbert Foyle’s Lancastrian Right Ward (the block of bills and bows) has advanced to the hedge in front of them - and there they intend to stay, as Gloucester’s mounted knights thunder into view, around the wood over to the right of Foyle’s position, beyond the pond. His archers loose off a flight of arrows at long range but to no effect.




The Yorkist’s Flemish crossbowmen meanwhile, from their starting position behind the beehives, make a beeline towards de Brassey’s advancing men-at-arms, whilst the Yorkist gun fires ineffectually at Foyle’s Lancastrian ward.




Next turn.

Sir Gilbert Foyle’s archers now loose two arrow barrages at Gloucester’s rapidly closing knights, but still at long range succeed in killing just one from 24 attempts (several hits, but all saved bar one – Knights saving on a 3,4,5,6 against archery, are jolly hard to kill! )

The Knights now barrel into Foyle’s ward.
The archers dice to see how they react, and evade backwards, trading places with the billmen behind them. A melee now ensues across the hedge.



Question: Interestingly – if I’ve got it right – the hedge makes no difference? The attacking knights have yet to cross the hedge, so are not disarrayed.
But nor do the defenders count it as an obstacle (the rules say stakes and walls are an obstacle, and have the effect of pushing up the defenders’ armour quality one notch for saving throws. But ‘trees’ aren’t. So presumably hedges aren’t either? Seems wrong to me that one, but there you go… )

Anyway, the melee goes predictably badly for the Lancastrians - seven dead billmen, versus three dead knights.



The bill and bow unit duly fails its morale test, is daunted, falls back, and – in accordance with rules, if I’ve read them right – splits into its two constituent parts, both daunted.


 
The rules don’t say (unless I’ve missed it) what happens to the attached leader in this situation.
Question: Can a leader choose either unit to remain attached to when the block splits?
(I’ve assumed so, and Sir Gilbert has remained attached to his intact company of archers, rather than his heavily depleted billmen).

Similarly, when the mounted knights follow up to continue the melee (as they are obliged to do), I have assumed they remain in contact with the billmen they were facing, rather than the archers who have now split off? (That’s another question!)

In any event, the Lancastrians surrender their first army morale token to the Yorkists.

Meanwhile, the company of Yorkist bills in the hayfield rushes towards the Milanese handguns (who have inflicted a casualty on them). The wily Italians evade – as they have to do, I think I’m right in saying?



Question: Skirmishers don’t have to roll for it, they just automatically leg it if attacked?
But they are disarrayed by evading? (The ‘skirmishers are exempt’ rule on ‘movement penalties’, P.14, suggests not; the rule on evading, P.18, suggests they are disarrayed however). Which is right?

As one of his orders, Sir Robert Tenchley has attached himself to his block bow-and-bill unit and rallied them to remove their disarray.



The Flemish crossbowmen have advanced again and are peppering de Brassey’s men-at-arms with crossbow bolts, causing a couple of casualties. The reduction in armour class for fully armoured men against handguns and crossbows is quite telling.




Tenchley’s Yorkist archers also get in on the act, and take down another Lancastrian man-at-arms.




Meanwhile, de Brassey’s company of Lancastrian retinue archers are left marooned out on his left flank, well out of range of his 6” command radius.
Just bad generalship really - but the terrain and his initial deployment kind of forced the split in his force.

It’s the end of the turn however, and since they’ve done nothing, the idle archers do at least get to shoot off one volley or arrows towards the hayfield which is just in range, removing another Yorkist billman. So all is not completely lost.




Next turn.

Tenchley’s bowmen carry on shooting de Brassey’s advancing men at arms – who are also now disarrayed by climbing over / through the hedge.




The bonus card comes up, which means Gloucester’s melee against Foyle’s daunted, depleted billmen resumes.
The knights were disarrayed by crossing the hedge as they followed up (Question: Is this right? Seems odd? They’re not disarrayed by fighting a bloody melee, but they are disarrayed by following their reeling and retreating enemy over / through a hedgerow?)
Nevertheless, it’s still a one-sided contest. One more knight is killed, but two more billmen. The bills break and rout (that’s a second army morale token to the Yorkists), and Gloucester and his knights pursue them, as they have to, right off the table, Towton-like, in a mad pursuit.
I took the view that they would not be able to return (Question: Could they? Should they?)




Ironically this leaves Sir Gilbert Foyle and his archer company completely intact. And he uses his own action to rally off their daunted marker.
They have emerged remarkably (unrealistically?) unscathed from the whole encounter.




Back in the centre, the rascally Italians (still disarrayed I presume?) have turned back, and begun firing at the Yorkist bills again, starting to knock off more figures.




Whilst the combined effect of archery and crossbows remorselessly whittles down de Brassey’s men at arms to under half strength. By the time they reach the enemy, there won’t be any left!




Nonetheless, before they have to take an end-of-turn morale test for falling below half strength, de Brassey’s leader card comes up, and in pile the heavy mob!
The bowmen dice to react, fail to evade, loose off a shot, but fail to inflict any casualties. Yikes!  :o



Actually the melee results are fairly even. Three more men-at-arms killed and four archers.
The bill-and-bow unit passes its morale test with flying colours though, so does not retreat. The melee is effectively a draw and continues.

Now we come to the one bit that bothers me.
By coincidence, the next card turned up is Tenchley’s. But he cannot continue the melee his unit is already engaged in, because the melee only continues when another bonus card is drawn.
Question: is that right? Doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense to me.

Instead, Tenchley now orders his billmen forward to swap places with the archers at the front. Again, seems a bit ‘gamey’, but also seems logically what would happen, if they're unable to just carry on fighting until the bonus card comes up?
Question: Is it legit, mid-melee, to switch melee troops forward from the rear ranks, to replace missile armed troops in the front ranks?

In any event, the bonus card comes up next, so the melee resumes, and the switch of the bills forward does the trick. Twelve bills against two men-at-arms, and each side with a leader contributing two free hits, finishes off the men-at-arms.
That’s the third of the Lancastrians’ army morale tokens handed over to the Yorkists.




Sir Gilbert Foyle starts to lead his archer company over to support the ill-fated de Brassey, but too late. And the Flemish crossbows move to block him anyway...



I called it at that point.

The Yorkist knights have disappeared in a wild pursuit, but everything else is fairly intact on their side.

The Lancastrians though, have lost their armoured punch altogether, with both their bills and men at arms destroyed.
They do have two intact archer companies left - albeit one with only three shots remaining in their quivers. But there's realistically little way back for them to take four army morale tokens off the Yorkists.

The disconsolate Roger de Brassey, leaves the field, followed by his faithful mutt.




Overall, the rules work well and certainly give a nice flavour of the period.
The way it plays feels a little disjointed to me in places – the hiatus in the melees and so on. But that’s probably just my inexperience with the rules.

The bonus cards and special event cards didn’t really play much of a role in this. There were a couple of re-roll perks, and the special event card for ‘truce’ was drawn, but there was no opportunity to play it.

One of the only things I would say by way of constructive criticism, is that the terminology could perhaps be more consistent and I’m sure will be tightened up in the next edition. ‘Orders’, ‘order activations’, ‘command actions’, and similar terms seem to be used interchangeably. (Or the specific different meanings of these different terms are simply eluding me).
Similarly, in some places the rules refer to ‘casualties’, but in other places ‘kills’. I think these are one and the same thing, but I’m not 100% sure. (At one point I was thinking ‘casualities’ was being used to mean ‘hits’).

One last question. I'm confused about the rallying rule. At one point it says that only by a leader attaching himself to a unit can a daunted or disarrayed marker be 'rallied off'. But then in the 'end of turn' sequence rules, it seems to suggest that units who haven't done anything that turn can automatically rally off a disarray marker. Without a leader joining them?
Answers on a postcard please :)

So – what else did I get right and what did I get wrong about the rules? There were certainly one or two things I forgot to include... (like re-rolling sixes in morale checks on daunted / disarrayed units... )

Comments and corrections welcome. Thank you.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2020, 08:24:48 AM by Captain Blood »

Offline Bloggard

  • Scatterbrained Genius
  • Posts: 3458
Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
« Reply #1 on: September 27, 2020, 12:59:54 PM »
well, can't comment re: the rules.

but, blimey, Capt. Blood, your stuff looks so 'ecking GOOD

Offline Eric the Shed

  • Galactic Brain
  • Posts: 4200
    • The Shed Wars Experience
Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
« Reply #2 on: September 27, 2020, 01:03:06 PM »
Hi Richard

We house ruled that hedges count as barricades so do give armour saves - and like you I also think there should be more hedges on the field.

Fantastic looking game - will let Andy answer rest of the points.

If you fancy another game soon shout - happy to come to you

Giles

Offline Storm Wolf

  • Mad Scientist
  • Posts: 892
Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
« Reply #3 on: September 27, 2020, 01:33:45 PM »
well, can't comment re: the rules.

but, blimey, Capt. Blood, your stuff looks so 'ecking GOOD

What he said, and I don`t even do historical really, lovely :-*

Excellent

Glen

I've got a serious case of table envy!!!!
Only the insane have strength enough to prosper. Only those who prosper may truly judge what is sane.

Offline Ray Rivers

  • Galactic Brain
  • Posts: 5911
Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
« Reply #4 on: September 27, 2020, 01:51:46 PM »
We house ruled that hedges count as barricades so do give armour saves - and like you I also think there should be more hedges on the field.

In the old days there was always a distinction between "hard cover" and "soft cover." In this case of the Knights vs the Men-at-Arms, each side would receive a modification for having soft cover and thus probably a tad less "casualties."

Another question that rose in my mind from your AAR is that when the Knights were forced to follow-up and continue the melee, wouldn't they have had to jump over the hedges and thus been disordered? I haven't read the rules, but if true, might have prevented the cavalry from racing off the table.

And just a thought about stuff I see more regularly now in new rules... is more ambiguous terms which actually IMO, cause more confusion than if you used tried and true terms such as "kills." There is no doubt what "kills" means, but I see more and more terms concerning stuff like morale and such which stray from conventional terminology. I think that is an error on the part of rules writers.

Overall, the rules be damned... once again, a beautiful table. EPIC!  :-*

Offline Norm

  • Supporting Adventurer
  • Mastermind
  • *
  • Posts: 1177
    • Blog for wargaming in small places
Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
« Reply #5 on: September 27, 2020, 01:56:53 PM »
A beautiful game, table and figures - thanks for posting so many pics.

Offline Cubs

  • Galactic Brain
  • Posts: 4911
  • "I simply cannot survive without beauty ..."
Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
« Reply #6 on: September 27, 2020, 02:23:10 PM »
Yeah, the hedge combat don't seem right, does it?

Q. Can a cavalry unit cross a hedge in normal movement? If not, surely it cannot do so in any other situation either.

Q. Is there no rule regarding defending from cover? It seems that the unit defending the hedge should get some sort of defence bonus.

Q. When a unit routs off the table, the attacking unit MUST follow it off as well with no chance to remain in the battle? That seems like a terrible way to reward losing a combat by effectively taking out a stronger unit! 
'Sir John ejaculated explosively, sitting up in his chair.' ... 'The Black Gang'.

Paul Cubbin Miniature Painter

Offline Captain Blood

  • Global Moderator
  • Elder God
  • Posts: 19305
Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
« Reply #7 on: September 27, 2020, 02:32:21 PM »
These are indeed the questions, Cubs  lol

A beautiful game, table and figures - thanks for posting so many pics.

Thanks Norm. I’ve read your game reports, so as someone with a bit more experience in playing the rules, please do let me know if you’ve got a view on any of the questions that came up here :)

Offline Ray Rivers

  • Galactic Brain
  • Posts: 5911
Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
« Reply #8 on: September 27, 2020, 02:40:39 PM »
Q. Can a cavalry unit cross a hedge in normal movement? If not, surely it cannot do so in any other situation either.

Yes, it is called "hedge jumping," funny enough.  ;)



Having said that, it requires the horse to advance towards the obstacle at the trot or canter and as one grows near the rider sits up and forward in the saddle and relaxes the reins. I believe this is called given the horse "the head" which means it then approaches the obstacle at the canter or gallop and leaps over on its own. The unit will become disordered during the jump as some horses will refuse and some riders will lose their equilibrium.

Folks jumping over hedges (41 secs):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHbdfhlnZac

« Last Edit: September 27, 2020, 03:01:29 PM by Ray Rivers »

Offline Cubs

  • Galactic Brain
  • Posts: 4911
  • "I simply cannot survive without beauty ..."
Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
« Reply #9 on: September 27, 2020, 02:49:28 PM »
Yes, it is called "hedge jumping," funny enough.  ;)

I was about to come back with "But that's a steeplechase horse specially trained to do it, does it follow that a warhorse carrying an armoured knight can do the same?" ... but then the obvious reply would be that if an archer can fire over a hedge and people can fight across it, it's not going to be more than 4ft high anyway ... so yeah, I guess. 

Offline Ray Rivers

  • Galactic Brain
  • Posts: 5911
Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
« Reply #10 on: September 27, 2020, 03:05:07 PM »
I'm pretty darn sure warhorses were trained to jump over hedges in jolly old England.

The question would be how high is the hedge and how fresh is the horse. Even in the best scenario, there would be mixed results and thus... disordering.

Offline AndyC

  • Assistant
  • Posts: 21
Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
« Reply #11 on: September 27, 2020, 03:09:24 PM »
A good looking and eventful game. Lots of excellent and perceptive questions too. Some will be answered in the forthcoming FAQs, but in the meantime, here's my two penn'orth.

1. Yes, a gun costs 6 points and its crew costs 3, so 9 in total (p8). You have to make your own judgement on the cost benefit analysis. New technology is often expensive and unreliable. But the odds of blowing up (rolling three 1s in a hand of six) is only about 6/100 according to Professor Google.

2. I would not have allowed knights to fight infantry on the other side of a hedge - how would they get at them? We're not talking suburban privets here. The best way to defend an obstacle is not to line it - rather it's best to stand back from it and let the enemy fall into disarray by crossing it - then counter attack before they can sort themselves out (tactical tip - don't try an attack across an obstacle against an enemy who has not yet drawn their Leader card).
The only obstacles I mention as giving extra protection to the defender in a melee are walls and buildings (p19 col2) as the two sides could still get at each other in hand to hand in those situations.
I will have to say something about hedges to clear this up. How common were they in late 15th century England anyway? This is pre-enclosures after all. They had "Great Hedges" as Parish (and other) boundaries (there was one at Blore Heath) so I suppose that means there must have been "lesser hedges" as well. I would say that you can't fight through a hedge and you can only cross it by getting a disarray token and stopping on the other side. It gives no cover from shooting. May Billmen could claim a "Special Action" (p13, col2) and chop their way through (they are using converted hedging tools, after all!).

3. Pursuers should follow up the enemy they were in contact with - their blood is up, they are getting their own back on the people they have been fighting. And yes, they would be disarrayed crossing that hedge, but pursuers are always disarrayed anyway (p22 col2).
If they break a unit and their 12 ins pursuit move takes off the table they don't come back, but you don't lose an army morale token for this. I need to add words to this effect. I don't know of any case around this period where pursuers ever returned to the fighting. Disappearing off into the distance is something English cavalry and enraged Celts would continue to do for centuries to come...
4. A daunted unit takes any attached Leader with it when it retreats (p22 col2). I f the unit is broken, the Leader (except for a Hero, who escapes with a free move - "with a sudden leap our hero was free") routs with it.
If a block is daunted an attached leader should go with the unit he is touching or the front unit if he added his extra hits to it in Melee.
5. When skirmishers evade they should always get disarrayed like other evaders. I will change the wording on movement penalties to make this clear. Disarrayed skirmishers will need to be rallied by a Leader, as they don't get the free action at the end of the turn if unactivated during the turn. He may well have better things to do so until then they will shoot at half effect. This is just another way of making skimishers just a supplementary nuisance in the game. They always evade because Melees are not in their job description - Kern are the only skirmishers who can attack.
6. "A unit cannot be daunted and then rallied in the same turn" (p23).
7. "A Leader must join a unit to Rally off (remove) disarray tokens" (p23). Here I need to add "as a Rally Action during a turn" (thus allowing the removal of one Disarray token as a free action at the end of the turn for an unactivated unit).
8. Swapping over a block's units while one of them is involved in an ongoing melee definitely is gamey. I need to explicitly disallow it.
9. Kills,hits and casualties. Orders,Command actions etc. Yes, good point. I do need to tighten up the wording.
Quite a bit there. Phew!

Offline Captain Blood

  • Global Moderator
  • Elder God
  • Posts: 19305
Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
« Reply #12 on: September 27, 2020, 03:30:49 PM »
Excellent Andy. Thanks for the speedy responses, most of which make sense - although I’m not entirely convinced on the ‘no fighting across hedges’ point. But maybe that’s just because I like hedges ;)
Hedged-in enclosures (including dry stone wall ‘hedges’) and boundary ditches and bunds have been manmade features of the English landscape since prehistoric times, so if it was me, I’d make the rules for attacking across any low (viz. waist / chest high) linear obstacle the same. But they’re your rules - you da boss!

Some of the other things I should have worked out for myself. Sorry about that :)

Looking forward to the FAQs, and my next game.

Cheers.

Richard


Offline AndyC

  • Assistant
  • Posts: 21
Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
« Reply #13 on: September 27, 2020, 03:52:59 PM »
OK how about if I lump “field boundaries
such as dry-stone walls and
low hedges” in together if a defender
chooses to line them?( so no re-rolls
when attacking and the
defender goes up one armour class)
That way we could still have a “great
hedge” as a major obstacle. I’m thinking
something along the lines of a Normandy
Bocage....

Offline Captain Blood

  • Global Moderator
  • Elder God
  • Posts: 19305
Re: Never Mind The Bill Hooks test game ;)
« Reply #14 on: September 27, 2020, 04:04:00 PM »
I like that  :)

I totally get your point  by the way (I watched your video!) about the right way to defend an obstacle is to stand back from it, let the onrushing foeman make an arse of himself scrabbling to get over it, then get stuck in while he’s scrambling back to his feet.
On the other hand, that would take a considerable amount of discipline, courage and training on the part of the average uneducated spear carrier.
If I were a soldier with a pointy stick or length of sharpened metal in my mitt, I would be hugging close to that wall (or whatever) for the protection it provides to part of my body, whilst trying to stop the other bugger getting over it to get at me. It gives me an advantage, and him a disadvantage - so I’m hiding behind that wall and trying to stab the swine as he tries to clamber across it swinging at me.

Anyway, enough of my amateur theories of armed combat, of which I have no experience whatsoever lol
That sounds like a good suggestion, thank you Andy.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
46 Replies
16178 Views
Last post November 30, 2011, 08:29:18 PM
by Silent Invader
139 Replies
16158 Views
Last post September 28, 2020, 02:01:56 AM
by Cat
9 Replies
1470 Views
Last post September 01, 2020, 03:34:06 PM
by rampantlion
55 Replies
5990 Views
Last post December 06, 2022, 11:16:23 PM
by Captain Harlock
8 Replies
1287 Views
Last post January 16, 2023, 07:31:41 AM
by has.been