|
Post by tdenmark on Apr 5, 2015 0:56:58 GMT -6
Heroes are stated as being worth 4 figures. How does this translate in Man-to-Man combat? Is a Hero treated as 4 figures? (and how does that work?) or do they get some other kind of bonus?
|
|
|
Post by derv on Apr 5, 2015 6:40:02 GMT -6
I'm not sure what you're specifically asking, so I'll try to answer the question based on what I think you're asking.
Let's forget about scale used for the various combat systems for the moment.
Many wargames use the term "unit" to talk about multiple figures of the same type in formation. They usually specify a minimum number of figures needed to make up a unit. There is no such requirements given in Chainmail.
Chainmail uses the term "figure" or "man" when talking about individual troops at any scale.
What Chainmail tells us is that a Hero is worth 4 "men", where a "man" means a normal or regular figure. So, if a Hero is heavy foot, he is worth 4 heavy foot (4 men) against other normal or regular figures.
When using Man-to-Man, this means a Hero will get 4 "blows" per round against normal figures.
In Man-to-Man, a Hero could potentially get more then 4 blows per round, after the first round, depending on his and his opponents weapon class. The rules for this are specified on page 25-26, section 4, under Melee.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Apr 5, 2015 7:25:41 GMT -6
Agreed. This pre-dates the "alternate" combat system for OD&D and deals with larger scale combat with miniatures. The key is to determine what classifies as "normal" units.
If you use the mass combat tables, you can count the hero as four of whatever unit he represents (as derv suggested). This means not only four attacks per round (or more against certain types of units) but also that the hero needs to take four hits in the same round to "die". To determine how many attacks I think you need to look at the mass combat table (Chainmail, p40). For example, a hero classified as "medium horse" (probably chain and shield and on horseback) gets "2 dice per man" when fighting light foot, so since he counts as 4 medium horse he would get 8 attacks against a bunch of light foot soldiers.
If you use the 2d6 man-to-man tables, you again count the hero as four units but I think that he gets exactly four attacks against normal men.
|
|
|
Post by chicagowiz on Apr 5, 2015 7:27:15 GMT -6
When using Man-to-Man, this means a Hero will get 4 "blows" per round against normal figures. In Man-to-Man, a Hero could potentially get more then 4 blows per round, after the first round, depending on his and his opponents weapon class. The rules for this are specified on page 25-26, section 4, under Melee. This answers the question I had as well. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Apr 5, 2015 7:36:08 GMT -6
I haven't found any evidence or examples in the Chainmail book itself that a fantasy hero would ever attack on the man-to-man table, nor that they would get four (or more) rolls. Doing so would be mathematically "broken" to the point of ridiculousness, and certainly not a fun or fair game for the participants. I believe that both Fantasy Supplement and Man to Man Combat are separate and unrelated optional rules. Most players would not use them both simultaneously and whole cloth any more than we would use both Greyhawk and Blackmoor in their entirety. Certainly we can play Chainmail as a complete game without either optional system. Smart players will cherry pick the supplemental rules that make sense and foster a fun game. Please note I am talking about actually playing Chainmail as written, not "D&D with some Chainmail elements" as is popular to discuss on these boards. Happy to be proven wrong by someone who has done a close reading of Chainmail.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Apr 5, 2015 8:50:14 GMT -6
Although the Fantasy Supplement was clearly written with the mass combat rules in mind, I see no reason to think that they weren't expected to be perfectly compatible with the man-to-man rules. A Hero fights as four men. So on the man-to-man tables, pretend he's four men all doing exactly the same thing.
It all depends on finding a situation where you want to fight man-to-man but include a fantastic opponent.
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Apr 5, 2015 15:33:37 GMT -6
Treating a Hero as 4 units figures in man-to-man does seem to be what is implied. As the definition for Superheroes states "these fellows are one-man armies"
It seems in practice it would complicate things. I guess that is Gygax's way of defining a Conan-like character who would be able to take on 10 guys at once single-handedly.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Apr 5, 2015 15:34:17 GMT -6
I haven't found any evidence or examples in the Chainmail book itself that a fantasy hero would ever attack on the man-to-man table, nor that they would get four (or more) rolls. Doing so would be mathematically "broken" to the point of ridiculousness, and certainly not a fun or fair game for the participants. I believe that both Fantasy Supplement and Man to Man Combat are separate and unrelated optional rules. Most players would not use them both simultaneously and whole cloth any more than we would use both Greyhawk and Blackmoor in their entirety. Certainly we can play Chainmail as a complete game without either optional system. Smart players will cherry pick the supplemental rules that make sense and foster a fun game. Please note I am talking about actually playing Chainmail as written, not "D&D with some Chainmail elements" as is popular to discuss on these boards. Happy to be proven wrong by someone who has done a close reading of Chainmail. What kind of evidence are you looking for? Monard has given testimony that they used it. It's found in this thread somewhere. Beyond that, a reference that seems to support the idea is found under Magic Weapons. On page 38 it specifies who can use magic weapons- elves, heroes, magic users. Under Magic Armor, it tells us to subtract one from opponents attack dice on the Fantasy Table, subtract "three on Man-to-Man attacks". This is not to suggest that I feel the Fantasy Supplement was written for the Man-to-Man system or that I'm a fan of the idea, just that they probably did use it at times, for sieges and such, even though it's an odd fit
|
|
|
Post by derv on Apr 5, 2015 15:45:40 GMT -6
Treating a Hero as 4 units in man-to-man does seem to be what is implied. As the definition for Superheroes states "these fellows are one-man armies" It seems in practice it would complicate things. I guess that is Gygax's way of defining a Conan-like character who would be able to take on 10 guys at once single-handedly. Figures found on the Fantasy Combat Table are always 1:1. The Man-to-Man system is also assumed to be at 1:1. For clarity, how do you understand or define the term "unit"? A unit could be any number of 1:1 figures of the same type that are formed together for movement, combat, and morale purposes. Chainmail does not specify any limits.
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Apr 5, 2015 15:55:58 GMT -6
I am not prone to hyperbole so let me give a specific example of what I mean by "mathematically broken to the point of ridiculousness."
Let's run a hypothetical Chainmail skirmish using both the Man to Man Combat and Fantasy Supplement. Maybe you are just a little kid, and I am an experienced Chainmail veteran, so I let you have 20 points (1 hero) and I only give myself 8 points (4 orcs).
If my orcs are armed with hand axes (a totally normal weapon for orcs) then they hit your plate+shield hero (AC2 in D&D terms) on a roll of 12 (1 in 36 chance). But we know the orcs must land 4 simultaneous hits to kill the hero, which means they must all roll 12's. So my probability of killing your hero and winning the game is 1/36 x 1/36 x 1/36 x 1/36 or 1/1,679,616 chance. Yikes!!
Now imagine I choose maces (another totally reasonable weapon for orcs to possess). They need an 8 or better to hit (15 in 36) individually and their odds of 4 simultaneous hits rise to 50,625/1,679,616.
So, we see that a simple weapon-swap has improved Team Orc's odds by 50,625-fold! How could that possibly make chainmail into a more fun player vs. player game? It just becomes a stupid game of rock-paper-scissors where the most important variable is what weapon I choose.
Furthermore, since we can see from these numbers that my orcs can improve their odds by 50,625x simply by choosing the optimum weapon, isn't it odd that the rules don't specify what kind of weapons orcs carry? I mean, if we are playing each other in a tournament, this is probably going to be the most important variable that decides the game. As Team Hero, you would probably try to argue that my orcs ought to possess a rag tag mix of cheap and crude weapons, because that really helps your hero's odds. But as Team Orc, I would naturally counter-argue that my orcs were expecting combat with armored knights and would come prepared with maces and flails.
Oh yes. Flails. Did I mention flails yet? Flail vs. plate+shield only needs a 7 to hit. That is 21 in 36 odds individually or 194,481/1,679,616 odds of 4 simultaneous hits, or 11.5%. Plus, flails are longer than swords, so now my orcs get to strike first on the decisive first round of combat. I've gone from million-to-one long shot, to better than 1-in-10 I will strike you dead before you have a chance to act!!!
A player vs player combat system is broken and not fun in my opinion if my choice of weapon increases your odds of losing by a factor of 194,481 or more. The rule "four simultaneous kills must be scored against Heroes" is mathematically incompatible with a multi-dice bell curve mechanic.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Apr 5, 2015 16:05:53 GMT -6
You didn't ask for evidence of whether it was broken or not, you asked if there was any evidence, in Chainmail specifically, that they were used together. My answer is, yes there is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2015 16:08:08 GMT -6
Well, you may not LIKE it, Bubuleh, but that's just the way it was designed to work, does work, has worked, and will continue to work.
A hero in Man to Man gets four attacks. A Superhero gets eight attacks. That's why they're called "one man armies."
You may not like it, your choice. But that IS the way the rules work.
The moral is don't try to take down a Hero with orcs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2015 16:11:59 GMT -6
Heroes are stated as being worth 4 Units. How does this translate in Man-to-Man combat? Is a Hero treated as 4 units? (and how does that work?) or do they get some other kind of bonus? Actually, no, it states that they are worth four FIGURES. Therefore, in Man to Man they are treated as four... figures.
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Apr 5, 2015 16:12:21 GMT -6
The best textual evidence is this: "When... combat takes place on the non-Fantasy Combat Tables..." Since there are only 3 combat tables, the plural "Tables" strongly implies Heroes can indeed fight on Man-to-Man. You are correct I still don't like it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2015 16:21:54 GMT -6
That's okay, there are many rules out there that are NOT Chainmail, and they're very good at not being Chainmail.
But I'm going to step back and discuss this a bit more. ("You" is intended to be generic, not directed at any one person, even though I'm starting from your example.)
Your first mistake is using such small forces. CHAINMAIL is meant for armies, or at least war bands. One hero against a mob of orcs simply is not what the game is designed for, so you're trying to do something with the rules that they aren't intended for.
Secondly, in a larger battlefield situation, why the hell are you attacking a Hero with orcs? Attacking orcs with a Hero I can understand... that's the sort of thing they're designed for. A hero is virtually guaranteed to demolish any unit of normal combatants he attacks. Boromir was a Hero, and he killed something like twenty orcs before they took him down with arrows.
And it's not just Heroes. Give one army any fantasy creature worth 20 points and the other side nothing but ordinary warriors and watch the slaughter. This is not "bad game design," this is "bad scenario design."
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Apr 5, 2015 16:29:09 GMT -6
It is awesome to have someone here on the boards who played in those early games, and frankly I have been following your posts for a while and agree with just about everything you say. A question about "how we played it back in the day": Once troops were chosen, were players given free reign to choose whatever armor and weapons? Or was there some sort of unwritten rule determining what equpiment was "acceptable"? So for example, if I want my orcs to all wield maces, or two-handed swords, or pikes, is that allowed? Could they carry more than one weapon and swap them out as needed? A more general question, did players choosing their troops and equipment have the benefit of knowing what the other side had selected, so they could choose accordingly? Or was the troop selection done secretly, and then each team was surprised by the match-up and had to improvise an appropriate battle-strategy at the table? Your statement "why would you choose orcs to fight a hero" implies that I do, in fact, know ahead of time that you will be playing a hero. Thanks for your insights!
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Apr 5, 2015 17:49:58 GMT -6
For clarity, how do you understand or define the term "unit"? The same definition CM uses. A collection of like figures brigaded together.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Apr 5, 2015 18:56:55 GMT -6
The same definition CM uses. A collection of like figures brigaded together. I thought that you might be using the term "unit" in a general way, like how it can be used for inventories to describe a number of items of the same type. Each single item is then called a "unit". Why it is confusing in how you are using the term is because a unit is made up of multiple figures. It is possible to have a unit of heroes. It is also possible that a hero is part of a unit of normal figures, usually as a commander. When attached to a unit, they only add one to all die roles for the unit and would be the last figure to be attacked/killed. So, in this way, a hero is not worth 4 units. He is worth 4 figures or men.
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Apr 5, 2015 19:20:00 GMT -6
The same definition CM uses. A collection of like figures brigaded together. I thought that you might be using the term "unit" in a general way, like how it can be used for inventories to describe a number of items of the same type. Each single item is then called a "unit". Why it is confusing in how you are using the term is because a unit is made up of multiple figures. It is possible to have a unit of heroes. It is also possible that a hero is part of a unit of normal figures, usually as a commander. When attached to a unit, they only add one to all die roles for the unit and would be the last figure to be attacked/killed. So, in this way, a hero is not worth 4 units. He is worth 4 figures or men. I caught what you meant when I read your question and realized I used the term "unit" in a sloppy way, so clarified that a Hero is treated as 4 Figures as stated in CM.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2015 19:31:02 GMT -6
It is awesome to have someone here on the boards who played in those early games, and frankly I have been following your posts for a while and agree with just about everything you say. A question about "how we played it back in the day": Once troops were chosen, were players given free reign to choose whatever armor and weapons? Or was there some sort of unwritten rule determining what equpiment was "acceptable"? So for example, if I want my orcs to all wield maces, or two-handed swords, or pikes, is that allowed? Could they carry more than one weapon and swap them out as needed? A more general question, did players choosing their troops and equipment have the benefit of knowing what the other side had selected, so they could choose accordingly? Or was the troop selection done secretly, and then each team was surprised by the match-up and had to improvise an appropriate battle-strategy at the table? Your statement "why would you choose orcs to fight a hero" implies that I do, in fact, know ahead of time that you will be playing a hero. Thanks for your insights! Choosing armies was the exception rather than the rule. Generally speaking in almost all miniatures games including CHAINMAIL, the forces are decided upon by the referee. On the rare occasions we did choose armies, it was secret. The figures had a variety of weapons and we grabbed them by the handful. The idea of sorting through dozens of figures to get ten guys with maces never occurred to us, and if it had would probably have been considered poor form. Though there were units of pikes, and halberds, and archers, etc. You pay a point cost for pikes and bows, though; you don't pay a point cost for mace vs. hand axe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2015 19:32:43 GMT -6
If my orcs are armed with hand axes (a totally normal weapon for orcs) then they hit your plate+shield hero (AC2 in D&D terms) on a roll of 12 (1 in 36 chance). But we know the orcs must land 4 simultaneous hits to kill the hero, which means they must all roll 12's. So my probability of killing your hero and winning the game is 1/36 x 1/36 x 1/36 x 1/36 or 1/1,679,616 chance. Yikes!! Now imagine I choose maces (another totally reasonable weapon for orcs to possess). They need an 8 or better to hit (15 in 36) individually and their odds of 4 simultaneous hits rise to 50,625/1,679,616. To give that authentic CHAINMAIL feel, redo these calculations by paper and pencil, since calculators were not available in 1972 at a price either Gary Gygax or Jeff Perrin could afford.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 5, 2015 22:19:25 GMT -6
If my orcs are armed with hand axes (a totally normal weapon for orcs) then they hit your plate+shield hero (AC2 in D&D terms) on a roll of 12 (1 in 36 chance). But we know the orcs must land 4 simultaneous hits to kill the hero, which means they must all roll 12's. So my probability of killing your hero and winning the game is 1/36 x 1/36 x 1/36 x 1/36 or 1/1,679,616 chance. Yikes!! Now imagine I choose maces (another totally reasonable weapon for orcs to possess). They need an 8 or better to hit (15 in 36) individually and their odds of 4 simultaneous hits rise to 50,625/1,679,616. To give that authentic CHAINMAIL feel, redo these calculations by paper and pencil, since calculators were not available in 1972 at a price either Gary Gygax or Jeff Perrin could afford. I think the "blows per round" rule would allow an orc with hand-axe to strike up to three blows per round if, for example, the hero were armed with a two-handed sword. Also, the orcs would presumably seek to surround the hero, so any flank or rear attacks would be advantaged and the hero would receive no counter-blow. But yeah, the orcs are still WAY better off with maces, and the hero is still going to smash them either way. The issue around significance of weapon selection can possibly be addressed by updating the MtM table. The good news here is that EGG provided us with amended tables of weapon performance vs. armor types in GH and then again in AD&D. It's straight forward to convert these "new" figures from d20 adjustments to 2d6 target numbers, or to simply use them "as is" with d20s in Man-to-Man. From memory I believe the "new" adjustments are significantly toned-down compared to those found in CM (though you still may want to strike out the AD&D "footman's flail" and go with the horseman's). The other factor to consider is "space required", or: how many figures can face each other across a fixed-width front? Once again, EGG provided us with these details in GH (p15), S&S (p2), and the AD&D PHB (p38--although these figures apparently need to be doubled to match those in GH and SS). So although a two-handed sword has great stats on the MtM table, a rank of four Zweihänders will require a 55ft frontage (by the S&S widths), while nine spearmen could stand against them! Fun
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Apr 6, 2015 9:13:14 GMT -6
Choosing armies was the exception rather than the rule. Generally speaking in almost all miniatures games including CHAINMAIL, the forces are decided upon by the referee. On the rare occasions we did choose armies, it was secret. The figures had a variety of weapons and we grabbed them by the handful. The idea of sorting through dozens of figures to get ten guys with maces never occurred to us, and if it had would probably have been considered poor form. Though there were units of pikes, and halberds, and archers, etc. You pay a point cost for pikes and bows, though; you don't pay a point cost for mace vs. hand axe. Serious question: Who is this "referee" of whom you speak? I don't see any mention in the Chainmail rules of a 3rd party referee or "Dungeon Master" (to borrow a D&D term). To this casual observer, Chainmail seems to fall into the category of games such as Chess or Risk, that two (or more) gentlemen could play without any need for an umpire. Funny that the authors would omit such an important detail from the rule book! Thanks for sharing this experience.... yet another example of the huge gulf between "rules as written" and "how we actually played" back in the day.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Apr 6, 2015 12:06:01 GMT -6
Serious question: Who is this "referee" of whom you speak? I sense rhetoric rather than a serious question. Miniature wargames don't have to be played with a referee, but they often are. Or you may want to design a particular battle for others to play in. The first step in playing a game of Chainmail isn't typically "Let's start with 500 points each, now pick your pieces!" It's more often "Let's reenact the Battle of Hastings. As the English, you're going to need..." Or it might be "Your job is to defend this keep. You can have 50 points' worth of footmen from among the figures on this shelf. And you, you brought two cannon figures, so you can use those, plus the figures on this shelf here." Someone has to arrange the scenario, and that someone is often also the referee.
This is common to all historical miniatures wargaming, not just Chainmail. This isn't a quirk of "back in the day."
|
|
|
Post by chicagowiz on Apr 6, 2015 12:46:51 GMT -6
Funny that the authors would omit such an important detail from the rule book! Thanks for sharing this experience.... yet another example of the huge gulf between "rules as written" and "how we actually played" back in the day. (tongue in cheek) It wasn't until we included those kids and their d**n Arr-Pee-Gees that we had to spell things out, like having a Game Referee and rules... (/tongue in cheek)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 18:43:18 GMT -6
Since wargames had had referees for over 200 years by the time CHAINMAIL was written, Gary and Jeff didn't feel the need to spell out the ____ing obvious.
In this as in so many other things, they were tragically mistaken.
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Apr 7, 2015 8:30:41 GMT -6
Thanks for spelling out the "obvious" for a younger fellow. I love these forums!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2015 9:33:46 GMT -6
]Serious question: Who is this "referee" of whom you speak? Having had a few days, and more sleep, I want to say that this is a really awesome question. The notion that "the referee designs the scenario" goes back to the 18th Century, but as you point out, nowhere does CHAINMAIL mention this. For that matter, Tony Bath's "Setting Up A Wargames Campaign" doesn't say that the book is aimed at the referee, but it makes no sense otherwise. Many miniatures games still assume the presence of a referee. Referees have always been a part of miniatures wargaming. Jon Peterson's Playing at the World talks a lot about this. Fish have no word for water. I think this really has a huge effect on a LOT of things.
|
|
|
Post by Fearghus on Apr 18, 2015 12:37:20 GMT -6
I think this really has a huge effect on a LOT of things. Good point. The wargames I've played did not have a ref. Even the two times I've played Chainmail it was simply me acting as the DM while my player controlled his forces. Even that was small scale and not a massive war.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2015 15:49:25 GMT -6
Well, that's another thing I'm going to be talking about. CHAINMAIL is not really a skirmish game; it assumes formed bodies of troops. I think unless you have at least 50 figures on a side, you're going to get a very weird situation because you're using the game for something it didn't aim for.
|
|