Plate Armour

[Anderas]

No need to argue!

I see the -1d6 just as equalizer so that not everybody is jumping on the 6d6 defense dice train.
I don't see at all anything that is realistic on it.

Look at Talhoffers Fencing book. It is a source from times when things like this really were in use - he was intensely watching court fights that were due always if the proves were not sufficient to have one winner.

Talhoffer states that two enemies against one is the sure death of the one in the middle - I call him Abel. The two will circle Abel until one of the two is in the back of Abel and then the fight starts and is short.

Do we have that in Heroquest?

No. Barbarian enters room with two goblins, kills one, defends the other, wins the fight.

Why?
1. Because it's fun.
2. Because the Barbarian is a Hero and we want to see heroic action.
3. Because the other two are not Barbarians but Goblins.

In reality, everybody has the same stats (1 BP only, maximum 2 BP) except for the skills that make up for some defense/attack dice. Defense works only against one enemy and only to the front where you see him. If two enemies are at the same side of you, you may defend the second enemy with a largely reduced defense value.
Is that fun?
It can be. LARP players enjoy the realism that comes with being really there. Long swords are better in duels there, and short swords are better if you make a closed front line advancing the enemy so close you have to fight in 20 cm distance. Because that's natural.

However, it would be difficult to play an entire HQ Dungeon if every Monster would be as strong as you - it is possible; "Against the Ogre Hordes" shows how it can be played - but in the end it is your group who decides what they like and what not. Some groups like to wade in Goblin Blood, some like more the one big enemy.

So calm down - Knightkrawler doesn't like the Plate Armour and therefore likes the -1d6 penalty. Cyntia likes it and doesn't like the -1d6; so in her Quests there has to be an Ogre more or two to equalize the penalty-free Plate Armour.
Everybody has his reasons. Plate Armour wearers have been nearly invulnerable at that time, so 6d6 is not even enough if you talk about reality. "Simplicissimus" has an eye-witness-report about their use inside, even if at his time the powder weapon was already invented (and the eye-witness-report was copied from another book).

[Count Mohawk]

"Simplicissimus" has an eye-witness-report about their use inside, even if at his time the powder weapon was already invented (and the eye-witness-report was copied from another book).

Fun fact: Plate armor was actually somewhat effective in stopping bullets from medieval muskets (or whatever the guns used during that time period were called), although a breastplate thick enough to withstand a couple of shots would be cumbersome to wear and move around in. The real reason knights and soldiers stopped wearing the stuff, though, was the exorbitant cost of getting high-enough quality steel for the armor, which only became higher and more expensive as firearm technology developed further.

[Anderas]

Simplicissimus was not really medieval. I hope that some day I find a good book from medieval times to read.

He lived during the German thirty years war. He was born in the beginning and he was writing the book when he was around thirty.
That is a century after the Spanish Conquistadores were discovering America - so you may imagine the technique in use. Firearms and Breastplate and Halberds, more or less.

I always thought that the English long bow as used in the one-century-war was the reason why the full armor was no longer used?

[Redav]

I always thought that the English long bow as used in the one-century-war was the reason why the full armor was no longer used?

It probably was the expense of the stuff but the longbow certainly went to town on the recipients in the Hundred Years War. Coincidently, I'm up to the fourth book in some historical fiction (Grail Quest) and while it's fiction, it's still interesting. I'm tempted to look into the historical stuff more more. I love that peasants owned the aristocracy on the battlefield.

[Count Mohawk]

The longbow may have also had something to do with it. I suspect foot soldiers stopped wearing metal armors because longbows could penetrate the low-quality stuff given to the rank and file, and cavalry knights stopped wearing plate when guns became both prevalent and potent. Longbowmen generally fared poorly against high-quality plate-armored units, though.

[knightkrawler]

To counter the effectiveness of plate armor against blade weapons, more blunt weapons came into play during the 15th century, like war hammers against mounted knights.
Those smashed in the armor effectively. It's like in football. You invent something to take your opponent down and he invents something to take your invention down.

[cornixt]

It's like in football. You invent something to take your opponent down and he invents something to take your invention down.

That sounds like an interesting game of football. Go-go-gadget fist!

[Goblin-King]

It's like in football. You invent something to take your opponent down and he invents something to take your invention down.

You don't watch much sport, do you?

[knightkrawler]

Are you kidding? I'm one of the few people who enjoy a football game tactically* and try to analyze what's happening as it progresses.
I and tasoe are the only sports nerds in here, as far as I know.

* I don't understand why the really great teams, I mean those with the appropriate player material, don't play a back three against opponents who set out in a 4-4-2 more often.
With a back four both CB's are taken on by the opponent's CF's which is dangerous and why one DF has to come deep to become a third CB, thus being disconnected from the passing triangles through midfield and wings. A back three would have a CB to cover and step up on occasion to play balls. Hummels would be perfect for that, between Sokratis and Subotic, both playing on their inside foot. The WB's (Durm and Piszczek/Großkreutz) would provide width and have freedom to go through to the touchline. There's still three midfielders who could overrun the opponent in the centre of the park (Bender, Mkhitaryan, Kampl vs. 2). In case the opponent's CF'c step back to overload midfield, Hummels can step up substantially, hitting even more accurate and dangerous balls. Immobile's strength could play out best next to a second CF, Aubameyang. Of course, Reus will take that second spot if he stays. There's one weakness: one WB on either side against a FB and a WM each which could account for some trouble over the wings. But pressing out of possession would mean for the left-channel CF to cover the opponen't RB and the right-channel CF to cover the opponent's LB. The only safe passes to uncovered teammates the opponent could play would be a triangle of two CB's and one DM, which can devastatingly be interrupted by Auba's lightning speed.

This is how I think Thomas Tuchel, Borussia Dortmund's new coach, will try to set out into games, at least as long as it works without Dortmund sliding into a relegation zone. A second season with this they will go for titles and Champions League again. There's some positions who need to be addressed with the acquiring of top-quality players: a GK, a left WB, a DM (and I mean defensive, not a passer like Gündogan is) and a CF to cover for Immobile or replace him. Another strong fast CM would help, too. When playing this system, Kagawa could be the second striker and drop deep to overload midfield even more in build-up play if Reus leaves.
All in all, I predict Tuchel will try to implement this 3-5-2 or even a variation of a Marcelo Bielsa-style 3-3-3-1 with the following setup:
Langerak - Sokratis, Hummels, Ginter (Subotic; but Ginter must be finally trusted, constantly playing games) - Piszczeck, Bender, Durm - Aubameyang, Kagawa, Reus - Immobile
with fluid positioning and heavy pressing.
I'll come back to this thread once my predicitons have proven true. The player material is there even as is. With some lucky improvements in some positions... who knows what this formation could be capable of. The acquisition of Gonzalo Castro has been confirmed. He will be shuttling CM material and can play RB or even right WB if he's fast enough for that job. Definitely a utility player suited for both formations and sets of requirements. In the old system which I doubt we'll see often if one of these two is successful, he can play next to Bender as a DM, as a RB, or even as the #10. He's luxury to have in any team once he's settled.

This is an example. And I'm not even close to being a Borussia Dortmund fan.

[torilen]

Yeah...I cannot stand watching sports. I love playing soccer and street hockey. But watching
any sports...total dislike. Even watching my son's soccer games...it was nice because he was
playing and all...but it was still kind of boring. It was everything I could do to keep myself
from running out onto the field.