"Single-Combat in Warfare." Topic

Even the Romans engaged in these challenges so it seems worth incorporating into rules I'm writing for skirmishing.

Anyone got any opinions on what's important and what isn't?

Of course, the main effect of a win or a loss is on morale for both sides. Even so, I sense that declining to fight a barbarian challenger may not have meant the loss of "face" for Republican Romans that it might otherwise presage for tribal peoples. Maybe it'd be a sign of martial implacability. Likewise, it wasn't a big thing for the Greeks, except very early on.

I wonder if it has any rτle in a unit-based battle-game.

Well, Lion Rampant uses it as a "challenge" between the retinue's leaders. Is LR skirmish or unit-based?
I've used when I was losing & it offered a "roll of the dice" chance to reverse it that.

WRG 6th had single combat with various consequences.

It happened as late as Bannockburn, between Humphrey de Bohun and Robert the Bruce. Taillifer challenged the English at Hastings, though the challenge wasn't accepted iirc.
The concept of heroic leadership and combat is central to the Midgard rules.

I've been thinking about this concept.

I'd treat challenges as morale events, not combats.Who wins is not as significant as the effect on onlookers.
Effects should be culture-specific: big deal for heroic/tribal troops, minor or none for disciplined formations (e.g. Republican Romans).

Asymmetric consequences: declining a challenge shouldn't be universal "cowardice" — effects should vary by troop type, culture, or doctrine.

And I *think* it needs to be resolved fast (one roll), used rarely, and try to avoid breaking battle flow.

What mechanics have other people found that work – beyond a simple dice throw?

Although my favourite system is Midgards, I think its true to say single combat is less common in battles than most people think. This is why they are so prominent in accounts when they DID happen.
Of course, having someone hunting in the middle of a melee (Alexander at Granikos, Pyrrhus at Asculum) is best dealt with as part of the melee, or a 'Risk to Hero' roll in Midgard.

Ochoin, Herkybird,
I guess you're talking about warband-based rules, but have you tried with skirmish? At that scale at least, I'd think single-combat should interrupt the flow of the game and for larger games, maybe a turn, at least? I got to thinking about it after incorporating heroes (or god-inspired men) who'd presumably step forward.

I agree on asymmetric consequences.

Ravensfeast doesn't mention it even though those rules are inspired by Viking and Anglo-Saxon conflict and those people used it occasionally. King Offa fought a single-combat before battle at the River Eider on the border between Saxons and the Danes.

I think tougher-looking barbarians are going to be partial to it as a way to demoralise the enemy. There's a theory as well, that some army commanders used single-combat to test their standing with divine providence before committing their army.

I'll write ✍️ something and see what you think. The hardest part is not making it too complicated a procedure for what should be a simple event.

"I'll write ✍️ something and see what you think."

Cool.

The Samurai supplement to Pike and Shotte has a rule that can have one Brigade Commander challenge their opposite if they are close enough. It is resolved as a simple die roll. The results are win/lose/draw (inconsequential). The losing
side has their command rating dropped by one and the winner gets some kudos that may or may not give benefits besides damaging the command rating of the opposition.

Mind you, this is an army-based system, but it shows that you can use a good yet simple procedure.

CAPTAIN BEEFHEART 0
"It is resolved as a simple die roll. The results are win/lose/draw (inconsequential). The losing
side has their command rating dropped by one and the winner gets some kudos that may or may not give benefits besides damaging the command rating of the opposition".
Interesting. Wonder if there's a consequence for refusing. And yes, getting rules for it simple is a good thing.

In 2002 a UK man used common law and the ECHR to (legitimately) demand a court force the licencing authority accuser to settle a £25.00 GBP driving fine with 'trial by combat'. I believe the Bury-St Edmunds court could only avoid the DVLA putting up a champion, by a mealy-mouthed appeal to the common law concept of "not in the public interest". The man should have appealed because one thing's for certain: I guarantee that a fight to the death between a 60-year old man with a grievance and a tubby lanyard-wearing civil servant would have interested the public like nothing else.

Armies like Ministries can be pretty impersonal machines. Single-combat, in a strange way, makes battle more human.

Ochoin,

Okay. So I wrote something for an Iron Age skirmish game. If players have enough warriors for a "warband", the single combat can be a focus for few turns. The idea is for a challenger to step forwards, have the challenge declined or accepted and face the consequences.

It all gets into a bit of a palaver thinking of all the ways a player might subvert the process, such as attacking the participating warband with another group. I could also make it simpler by stopping the game to focus on it alone. In the end I reckon these might be supplementary rules fitting into the general game structure, which for now I'm calling "Swords in the Mist".
___________________________________________________________
Single combat rules for skirmish, based upon one or more "warbands", contubernia or groups of psiloi with a leader.
………………………………………………….

~ Initiative

The warband of a warrior who won a single-combat last turn has the local initiative.

~ Movement

Single-combat phase:

a) Any warrior within a warband may seize the initiative this turn and challenge an enemy warband to single combat. Warriors on foot challenge the warriors on foot. Horsemen challenge the horsemen. Charioteers challenge the charioteers.

b) Conditions for challenge.

Two enemy warbands are apart; neither are in melee nor facing missile attack.

The challenger steps closer to the target warband within missile range, and at least 1/2" ahead of his fellows.

The player issues the challenge verbally.

c) Results:

Heroes must accept.

To accept, one warrior only must step at least 1/2" ahead of his fellows, taking, if possible, at least half his movement allocation* towards the challenger. Both figures are now "participants".

Participants must take at least a half maximum move towards base-to-base contact with the other participant until contact.

Participants may not withdraw.

Remaining warriors of both warbands cannot move closer to one another until the single-combat phase ends.

Warbands may re-form to face a rear attack.

The single-combat phase ends after a) the single combat is declined or ended and after b) the next player to move has finished his turn.

No other warrior or warband can move to attack a warband with a single-combat phase in progress if either participant is in line of sight.

~ Missiles

Participants in single-combat may not use a bow.

Participants can throw or sling one missile in total at the other participant only.

A participants' warband may not attack the other participant nor his warband.

~ Melee

~ Morale test
for:

A "barbarian" warband after declining single combat.

A warband that lost a single combat. Exception is if the warband was attacked this turn.
___________________________________________________________
* This is a general thing in the game that allows the throwing of missiles.

Any criticism or suggestions?

Cacadores, thank you for showing me this. I'll respond under the proviso I am very fallible & may end up spouting nonsense.

Can the duel last multiple turns? I'm not clear on this.

"Participants can throw or sling one missile in total…"
I'm glad Paris can try to kill Achilles, once anyway. Will success here change the morale result? IE it's one thing to see your hero killed in close combat, another to see David sling a stone at your mate, Goliath.

Some additions:
A. Boasting Bonus: If a warrior wins single combat, his warband gains +1 morale for the rest of the game. Simple.

B. Champion Pressure: A hero who declines must test morale personally, not just the warband. I'm not sure about this as it's a double penalty for losing.

C. Hesitation Rule: A warband that declines may not issue a challenge next turn/rest of game. If you're "yellow" you're "yellow"

Ochoin,
Thanks for taking a look.

"Can the duel last multiple turns?"

Yep; one or two turns for the challenge, acceptance, perhaps first missile and charge (depending on how far apart they are) and then one (or occasionally more) turns for the exciting melee. Plus one to give the victor or challenger time to get back to his lines unmolested.

"Participants can throw or sling one missile in total…"
I'm glad Paris can try to kill Achilles, once anyway. Will success here change the morale result? IE it's one thing to see your hero killed in close combat, another to see David sling a stone at your mate, Goliath.

Warriors in the loser's warband normally take a generic morale test anyway, because the toughest man stepping forward, now gone, was their leader or hero. Each have to roll less or equal to their morale rating with a plus for being in a shield wall or having a brave leader nearby. So only a minority are likely to run – they'll run until they pass the test again. I didn't want to over burden the losers – they've just lost their strongest man, after all.

"Some additions:
A. Boasting Bonus: If a warrior wins single combat, his warband gains +1 morale for the rest of the game. Simple."

Ah, thanks – missed that out! Of course, this is a chance to use the divinely-inspired stuff we were talking about. The other chance is when a leader comes back from a morale failure. Maybe I'll put up the rules I wrote for all that if you're interested.

Anyway, the winning warrior takes on all the attributes of a hero (or god) previously chosen and, in line with your idea and the game rules, lends his upped morale-rating to his warband mates when they need it. So long as he stays a hero.

B. Champion Pressure: A hero who declines must test morale personally, not just the warband. I'm not sure about this as it's a double penalty for losing.

If it's about double-jeopardy then sure. Individual warriors take the morale tests here – maximum one per man, even with many reasons. As for heroes, who declines loses his heroism: Archilleus was moping about his tent, rather than refusing fights when amongst his men. I'm thinking that if a barbarian warband is challenged and no one steps forward, that's a shame on every warrior. Whereas a Decanus can stop anyone accepting if they trust his discipline. Morale losers are marked as cowards and begin to run – it's not the end of the world. In the rules they get a chance to rally around the standard, or can be grabbed by a leader and given something like a Patton-slap!

C. Hesitation Rule: A warband that declines may not issue a challenge next turn/rest of game. If you're "yellow" you're "yellow".

Moi?! A barbarian "warband" in the game is mostly a grouping of individuals who can desert or be sent on errands. So to go along with what you wrote, I'll apply that to their leader for not stepping up, otherwise I'll be awash with markers. And if a decanus declines in order to project implacability then he's unlikely to make a challenge and can be marked too.

However, I have it that if he then chooses, a cowardly leader who rallies can choose to risk a second morale test as a redemption and if he wins, becomes a hero, or "godlike" in his attributes.

I think I'll get rid of all that "if the warband is attacked during a single-combat phase" stuff as it's too unwieldy, invites tactical attacks and is too many words! Ban attacks is simpler.

@ Cacadoress

Thanks for the update. This now feels well integrated rather than bolted on. I like how victory, refusal, and redemption all feed into existing morale mechanics without over-penalising the loser. As I said, I am not a skirmish gamer but I know narrative isvery important. this allows for narrative!

One-off missiles, hero status from victory, and banning interference all seem clean, playable choices. Reads as colour with teeth, not clutter. Nicely done, IMO.