"Rules for Aztecs taking prisoners?" Topic

Anyone interested in the fall of the Aztecs knows that they sometimes liked to take an enemy prisoner rather than kill him. The reasons for this were firmly based in the Aztec social system the more prisoners you took the better life got except for the prisoners. Even in extremity this cultural trait enabled Cortez to escape death.

I wonder if there are any rule stes that have tried to model this phenomonon and if so how was it done.

I'm currenty putting together a Piquet based set of rules for this and wondered how others have dealt with the issue.

Group melee would have a disadvantage. Individuals in fights get an extra saving roll. That's what comes to mind.

In a melee roll a die for each casualty. On a 5 or 6 it is a capture instead.

Do you need to then pull troops to escort prisoners? Can a hero hand off a prisoner or must he escort him to the rear himself?

My thoughts go like this.

Aztecs can only try to take a prisoner when they are winning.

The prisoners pals will make great efforts to rescue him.

Either they succeed and the Aztecs miss both a kill and a prisoner or the Aztecs beat off the rescue and carry off the prisoner.

In Piquet terms the outcomes might be:

Prisoner rescued Aztec hits cancelled.

Prisoner rescued Aztec hits stand.

Prisoner taken Aztec hits stand and their unit morale soars and Spanish group morale is damaged.

What about some kind of die roll (maybe for both sides) for all casualties, that a certain percentage aren't killed, but incapacitated or wounded. The wounded/incapacitated are then counted as "captured alive".

I'd be tempted to put a Down 2 on any Aztec melee resolution the Aztec player initiates (or in an ongoing melee on the Aztec cards) declared as non lethal combat, but count any enemy loss as double stand loss if the Aztec unit wins – I would also count any won melee as double for dress the line cards and major morale – because it would put the willies up the enemy.

My rational, is that Aztecs would not start taking prisoners until they were winning or ordered to. I think that being taken prisoner by the Aztecs would have a detrimental effect on friends.

James Roach

That's very interesting James and it ticks all of my boxes in terms of overall effect on the game.

Given the Spanish advantage in weapons its likely to be tricky for the Aztecs to pull this off but when they do it should have a significant impact.

I was wondering about making maybe four cards for the Aztec deck that could be played like a tactical advantage card (but withoutthe benefits) but on reflection its not needed-the Aztec player can just try for it when the odds look good.

I played in a convention game (Fall In or Cold Wars) last year. The rules were a home-brew, quick play. Essentially you rolled in combat for your unit (rules were for 15mm element-based) and you would declare if you wanted to take prisoners or inflict casualties. Taking prisoners was a harder roll to achieve but prisoners yielded more victory points. It created a nice conflict where you had to balance defeating your enemy with taking prisoners.

"Taking prisoners was a harder roll to achieve but prisoners yielded more victory points."

Yeah that's the dynamic I want PAR.

It would depend on estimation of time to cook them.

Have a heart Jc.

I was wondering about making maybe four cards for the Aztec deck that could be played like a tactical advantage card (but withoutthe benefits) but on reflection its not needed-the Aztec player can just try for it when the odds look good.

Hi OB,

I've always found that extra cards are as much a burden as a help. Much better to give options on existing cards. Given the odds against Aztec wins, you could also consider, using standard classic Piquet rules, to use Heroic Moment as a melee resolution card (for one unit?) at normal factors with prisoner taking.

I don't think it was a command decision. The warriors on the spot decided if they could do it. It seems that if they could, they always did. Their gods needed the sacrifice.

But whatever seems fun is the best.

Agreed vtsao that's what they did – no command needed.

That's an interesting thought about using a Heroic Movement card James. Much food for thought there.

Condottiere has rules for capturing people -- they would have to be modified a bit as the condition for them to occur is kinda rare, but I've actually thought about it.

Of course condottiere would need some modification anyway to represent meso-american armies.

There was or is a set of rules taken off TSatF. The Sword and the Gold or the Cross and the Gold, something like that. It had provision for capturing and sacrificing spaniards. This made them check morale and it could be from we're outta here to get the bastards. Even had wardogs.
Paul

One of the problems of modelling the Aztec Spanish war is the small number of Spaniards involved. All the sources agree that Spanish crossbows and arquebus had a significant effect on their opponents but the numbers of such troops were often very small. Of course the Spanish had loads of Indian allies to offset this disadvantage.

In his Ager Sanguinis rules James introduced the concept of the small unit and I think this is the way I will go for my Aztec experiment. I should say that in Piquet terms the small unit fights at a disadvantage and of course is easier to destroy than a normal full strength unit. That said the advantages in weaponry and armour and the stubborn nature of the Spanish significantly compensates for this.

I think I'm ready to try a couple of things out on the tabletop.