"Wounds to mounted troops 1D6 option" Topic

The table below can be used as a alternative method of determining if the horse or the rider is hit. As a bonus it allows mounted leader figures a second chance if the dreaded ace comes up. There is a 50% chance you will only have the horse shot out from under you.

Wounds to mounted troops.

Each time a mounted trooper is wounded, roll 1d6 and consult the table below:

DIE ROLL – HORSE – RIDER
1 – WOUND - DISMOUNTED – WOUNDED – DRAW CARD FOR RIDER
2 - WOUND - DISMOUNTED
3 - WOUND - DISMOUNTED
4 - WOUND - DISMOUNTED
5 - O.K. - WOUND/DISMOUNTED
6 - O.K. - WOUND/MOUNTED – DISMOUNTED IF KILLED

Why?
Why do you need to differentiate if a horse or a man is taken out?
I played in a Leonardo da Vinci game that had that option and it was needlessly tedious.
If you are planning to match a horseless rider with a riderless horse, why? How often was that done?

I'm interested to know the thought process. I understand that you want to know the condition of the rider, but why the horse?

Is it because you are looking to see or have unhorsed riders continue and fight on foot? Is it, as mentioned above?

Included in the rules was an option to determine if the horse or rider was hit. I wanted a simple roll to determine the same. Where it really comes into play is with the use of mounted officers. It gives them a second chance when an ace comes up.

Currently, I'm running a series of linked actions. Out of three battles this rule has only come into play twice and in both cases the officer only had a horse shot out from under them. (Something I have read that appears to happen quite often). I also recall reading about it happening in the Zulu War where the dismounted trooper needed to be rescued.

Makes sense. Trying to see if you have command and control after the commander is unhorsed. What rules are you simplifying?

20th Anniversary Edition – Page 27 – rule 10. Optional Rule – Cavalry. Calls for face cards to be horse hits.