Lion Rampant - Rough terrain rule question

[LouieN]

Hello All,

A Lion Rampant rule question for the collective. 

"And if one unit counts as in rough terrain, both units involved in the combat do: it's never a case that only one of the units fighting is affected by the terrain."

This one sentence has always made me doubt the intent of the rule.  Would the ruling above allow me to attack an enemy unit outside of rough terrain, but "suck" them into the rough terrain penalty because my attacking unit was (the majority) in the rough terrain?  I hope that made sense.   

Imagine an Elite cavalry unit sitting by a forest, 2" away from the forest edge.  A scruffy band of skirmishes attack it.  One skirmisher model makes contact, and the others remain in the woods.  Would my poor noble horse suffer the rough terrain penalty?

I am curious.  It always felt odd to "force" enemies into penalties they did not initiate.     

Thanks

[Atheling]

It's Lion Rampant, play it as you see fir or rather, interpret the rules to suit you and your group's playing style.

Dan wrote LR, TMWWBK and Dragon Rampant as a loose set of rules with fun as the main objective.

[Wiegraf]

To me the logic is to fight both sides would be in rough terrain since to engage they’d have to be moving around the one unit stuck in the rough terrain. But that’s just my take on it.  I understand why it feels weird though because why would a unit not in that terrain take penalties? I could undertake both ways of thinking

[Silent Invader]

Hello All,

A Lion Rampant rule question for the collective. 

"And if one unit counts as in rough terrain, both units involved in the combat do: it's never a case that only one of the units fighting is affected by the terrain."

This one sentence has always made me doubt the intent of the rule.  Would the ruling above allow me to attack an enemy unit outside of rough terrain, but "suck" them into the rough terrain penalty because my attacking unit was (the majority) in the rough terrain?  I hope that made sense.   

Imagine an Elite cavalry unit sitting by a forest, 2" away from the forest edge.  A scruffy band of skirmishes attack it.  One skirmisher model makes contact, and the others remain in the woods.  Would my poor noble horse suffer the rough terrain penalty?

I am curious.  It always felt odd to "force" enemies into penalties they did not initiate.     

Thanks

Within the context of the Rampant style of rules, it makes sense. Some of the attackers are still in rough ground, so for the defenders to fight them (remembering its unit on unit) some of the action will in actuality be in the rough ground. Played as a legal rule, it’s quite a useful ambush technique.

[Hobgoblin]

Within the context of the Rampant style of rules, it makes sense. Some of the attackers are still in rough ground, so for the defenders to fight them (remembering its unit on unit) some of the action will in actuality be in the rough ground. Played as a legal rule, it’s quite a useful ambush technique.

Yes, indeed. It's one of the great strengths of the Rampant system that terrain really counts. Weaker units can benefit either from luring impetuous attackers into rough terrain or by springing attacks from it. I think the 'equalising' rule for those that don't have the 'ferocious/ranger' rule is great.

The Rampant games aren't that unusual here either: Hordes of the Things and DBA have a similar rule for cavalry fighting opponents who are in woods, etc. In both cases, rough terrain becomes much more significant and tactically important.

As Silent Invader says, it makes sense when you remember that the combat is unit on unit - so the attacked unit isn't just standing still but trying to engage with the enemy attacking it from the trees or whatever.

[Sunjester]

If it's skirmishers taking on cavalry, think of it as being very close range missle fire rather than charging ito melee, the cavalry have a choice of sit still and take it or else try and chase their tormentors off.

[LouieN]

Thank you for the replies.  Something to think about.  Atheling you are right the rule can always be tweaked.

I have to think about what to do about defending river crossings. 

[Belisarius]

The officer commanding the cavalry would be at fault for positioning the cavalry so close to the woods in the first place. Also , I f memory serves Heavy foot take no penalty for fighting in woods, so. skirmishes would be the lesser of his troubles.

[LouieN]

It is the Elite foot that have the Rangers / Flexible / Ferocious special rule.  Which would be brutal. 

[Neldoreth]

Would my poor noble horse suffer the rough terrain penalty?

By my reading of the rules, and by the historical context, I believe the answer should be YES!

I picture the ensuing melee to be like: the skirmishers are pelting the cavalry from the tree line with close-range weapons, and those horse got too bloody close and now they are fighting the urge to chase the weaklings down and kill them, only to have them fade into the forest...

[LouieN]

Hello Neldoreth

1st love the website.  Thank you for all the great articles.

How would people view the rule under the following scenario. 

A stout group of Spearmen (Flemish maybe) are defending a river line.  The river is crossable.  A ragged group of bandits dives into the water to engage the spears.  The attacking unit is in the river, which is rough.  Now splashing water into the faces of the spearmen all the units are fighting at 5+. 

While I can blame the foolish Elite Cav from getting near woods and getting ambushed by skirmishes.  What can the solid foot do here; give up the river line?  Is there no benefit defending such an obstacle? 

Inner thoughts:  wait a moment...thinking here

Maybe that is the key.  Rivers should be treated as obstacles not rough. hmmmm   

[pws]

The Rampant games aren't that unusual here either: Hordes of the Things and DBA have a similar rule for cavalry fighting opponents who are in woods, etc. In both cases, rough terrain becomes much more significant and tactically important.

Also , I f memory serves Heavy foot take no penalty for fighting in woods, so. skirmishes would be the lesser of his troubles.

I agree, with both, as and old DBA player it make sense... HeavyCav (all cavalry units) should stay not so close to ambushers in woods, (medium) infantry units are the key to engage those pesky "psiloi"  .

[jon_1066]

Hello Neldoreth

1st love the website.  Thank you for all the great articles.

How would people view the rule under the following scenario. 

A stout group of Spearmen (Flemish maybe) are defending a river line.  The river is crossable.  A ragged group of bandits dives into the water to engage the spears.  The attacking unit is in the river, which is rough.  Now splashing water into the faces of the spearmen all the units are fighting at 5+. 

While I can blame the foolish Elite Cav from getting near woods and getting ambushed by skirmishes.  What can the solid foot do here; give up the river line?  Is there no benefit defending such an obstacle? 

Inner thoughts:  wait a moment...thinking here

Maybe that is the key.  Rivers should be treated as obstacles not rough. hmmmm   

I would give the spear the choice - set up right on the bank and they are in rough terrain when attacked from the river.  Set up 1-2" back and they are defending an obstacle as the other lot flounder out of the river.