|
Post by Stormcrow on Jan 7, 2016 14:09:44 GMT -6
Start by having everybody including yourself read Oman's "Art of War in the Middle Ages," Free, public-domain copies available in many formats at Project Gutenberg and the Internet Archive.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Jan 7, 2016 14:46:46 GMT -6
I just thought of another good question. Lets say I've got a line of archers standing directly in front of a line of halberdiers, and they flee from a heavy horse charge. They turn around to flee but find themselves blocked by the figures of the other unit and the heavy horse needs to continue it's charge movement. How should this situation be resolved?
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 7, 2016 18:09:52 GMT -6
This one's pretty much covered in the rules. Your retreating unit would immediately be stopped when it comes in contact with a friendly unit. Both units would need to spend the next turn rallying (no moving or melee). If the HH charge into contact, the units must roll to see if they will quickly rally (score of 1-2). If they fail to rally, the HH will roll on the combat table with benefit of rear attack. Archers and halberds will continue to retreat. 2nd turn requires a score of 3-6 to rally. HH can continue charge and roll on Combat Table if movement allows. Archers and halberds continue retreat, requiring a score of 6 to rally. If they havn't already retreated off the board by the 4th turn, they are removed from play.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2016 21:46:13 GMT -6
What Derv said. Forcing units to rout into enemy units and then pressing them is a tactic everyone should learn.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2016 23:53:15 GMT -6
So I ran a New Years Chainmail game. I had 5 players, and I filled in for a 6th; each player controlling a unit of men. The two armies were composed of Team 1: - 20 Longbowmen
- 20 Halberdier
- 20 Knights on Foot
Team 2: - 22 Longbowmen
- 20 Men-at-Arms
- 10 Mounted Knights
It is not possible for Team 1 to win, as long as the commanders of Team 2 have enough brains to sh*t unassisted. In a straighforward open-terrain meeting engagement, it simply cannot be done. Team 2 has as many archers as Team 1, and in addition has the Heavy Horse... the fastest moving AND hardest hitting force in the game. The point values help, but they aren't perfect in balancing a battle. I had to run "Battle on the Ice" three times at GaryCon to finally get things right. The Russians are almost entirely foot troops and the Teutonic Knights are almost entirely Heavy Horse. I had to give the Russians about 50% more points worth of troops. Also, three units per side is a VERY small battle, and even worse when one side has archers (which are most effective when stationary) and dismounted knights (which are very slow). Effectively Team 1 only had one "maneuver element." There just aren't enough units to do things with. Now Team 1 could have tried a "English at Crecy" approach with the archers up on a hill, the dismounted knights below and in front, and the halberdiers off to the flanks. But Side 2 has even MORE longbowmen, so the advantage of this approach is neutralized. In my "Flanking" thread I talk about how two units of foot can force even Heavy Horse to withdraw, but in this case Team 1 can't protect the unit flanking the Heavy Horse. Simply put, I can see no way for Team 1 to win; they have absolutely nothing that can counter the enemy Heavy Horse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2016 23:59:59 GMT -6
Looking at this arrangement, I can only wonder "What the hell was Team 1 trying to do?" They've got themselves spread so thin that there's no way the opposite ends of their army can support each other, and a long thin line like that is just begging to have the enemy come at it from the end and smash it, and strung out like that the longbowmen on the far right can't fire at troops attacking their own far left. It's no wonder they got routed. Once that happened, it was only a question of whether the halberdiers were going to die standing where they were, or die charging either the longbows or the cavalry. Either one, frankly, is suicide. Also, I have no idea what the commander of the heavy horse was thinking in that position. If he'd simply charged the line of halberdiers after the supporting archers routed he would have annihilated them in one turn. When you're commanding the single fastest and most maneuverable unit on the board, for Crom's sake don't immobilize it by pinning it in a d**n canyon. Honestly, the game went exactly as it should have. There is nothing wrong with the rules.
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Jan 8, 2016 9:37:39 GMT -6
Looking at this arrangement, I can only wonder "What the hell was Team 1 trying to do?" They've got themselves spread so thin that there's no way the opposite ends of their army can support each other, and a long thin line like that is just begging to have the enemy come at it from the end and smash it, and strung out like that the longbowmen on the far right can't fire at troops attacking their own far left. It's no wonder they got routed. Once that happened, it was only a question of whether the halberdiers were going to die standing where they were, or die charging either the longbows or the cavalry. Either one, frankly, is suicide. Also, I have no idea what the commander of the heavy horse was thinking in that position. If he'd simply charged the line of halberdiers after the supporting archers routed he would have annihilated them in one turn. When you're commanding the single fastest and most maneuverable unit on the board, for Crom's sake don't immobilize it by pinning it in a d**n canyon. Honestly, the game went exactly as it should have. There is nothing wrong with the rules.Oh I completely agree. I was on Team 1, and we had the option of pulling back to a hill at the edge of the map but felt it wouldn't allow for enough movement or maneuvering since we could have started the game already in place. We kind of boned ourselves. I was hoping the point value system was a bit more accurate, but I guess when I'm writing up my house rules I'll put in notes about archers and heavy cavalry being deciding factors in a battle of near equally sized armies. Also jesus I had over a 110 figures on the table and you are saying I needed more? I found it difficult to track fatigue with just the single unit I was given control of, and others did too. I guess next time I'll try to keep my unit a little less spread out. I'm assuming that a unit of archers can all still fire if they are more than 2 rows deep, just that the back rows have to fire indirectly? Also, what happens in the first round of melee when neither side scores casualties? Check morale? edit: I don't think I can run out of questions.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jan 8, 2016 13:06:38 GMT -6
I was hoping the point value system was a bit more accurate, but I guess when I'm writing up my house rules I'll put in notes about archers and heavy cavalry being deciding factors in a battle of near equally sized armies. This is exactly the sort of thing you'll learn when you read The Art of War in the Middle Ages. In chapter 1. Just sayin'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2016 21:05:43 GMT -6
The importance of Oman cannot be overstressed, for two reasons:
1) As an "old school" wargame, CHAINMAIL does not endeavor to teach you about the period. Along with virtually every other miniatures wargame I encountered until a few years ago, the assumption is that the rules are to allow you to play the game and that learning to play well will require historical study. For instance, CHAINMAIL does not require you to divide your army into three battles, but if you do you will find the rules support it.
To play CHAINMAIL or most other historical miniatures wargames well, you have GOT to study the period, not just read the rules.
2) Although Oman is no longer considered the definitive source, when CHAINMAIL was written it was the definite authority. Oman is baked into CHAINMAIL from the ground up. To understand CHAINMAIL, understand Oman.
Oman has not been totally superceded, either; though no longer authoritative, it is still considered a foundational text. Other authors still start from Oman.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2016 21:10:45 GMT -6
Oh I completely agree. I was on Team 1, and we had the option of pulling back to a hill at the edge of the map but felt it wouldn't allow for enough movement or maneuvering since we could have started the game already in place. We kind of boned ourselves. I was hoping the point value system was a bit more accurate, but I guess when I'm writing up my house rules I'll put in notes about archers and heavy cavalry being deciding factors in a battle of near equally sized armies. Also jesus I had over a 110 figures on the table and you are saying I needed more? I found it difficult to track fatigue with just the single unit I was given control of, and others did too. I guess next time I'll try to keep my unit a little less spread out. I'm assuming that a unit of archers can all still fire if they are more than 2 rows deep, just that the back rows have to fire indirectly? Also, what happens in the first round of melee when neither side scores casualties? Check morale? edit: I don't think I can run out of questions. 1) I'm not Jesus, he's just a friend. 2) More figures is not the same as more maneuver elements. 20 figures in one unit is one maneuver element, 2 units of 10 figures each is two. 3) Yeah, 50 figures is a small army. We used to use 200 point armies routinely. On each side. 4) The fatigue rules are cumbersome and frankly I've never used them. If I wanted to use them I'd have a 'fatigue threshold' and certain actions would generate 'fatige points.' 5) Alternately, if you're only controlling one unit, keep track on an index card of what they did. "Turn 1 move Turn 2 move Turn 3 stand Turn 4 move and melee" Et cetera. Two ranks of archers only. Archers after the second rank cannot fire indirect unless they are far enough back from the first two ranks per indirect fire rules. Yes, if no casualties scored you check morale anyway. However, be advised that "same vs same" will almost inevitably result in "melee continues." So if 20 heavy foot attack 20 heavy foot and no casualties are scored, and neither unit is flanked, and those are the only two units involved, I can tell you without even checking that the result will be "melee continues."
|
|
flightcommander
Level 6 Magician
"I become drunk as circumstances dictate."
Posts: 370
|
Post by flightcommander on Jan 8, 2016 23:33:41 GMT -6
Oman is baked into CHAINMAIL from the ground up. To understand CHAINMAIL, understand Oman. Copy ordered
|
|
|
Post by countingwizard on Jan 12, 2016 11:58:07 GMT -6
I've read a good chunk of Oman, what book would be it's equivalent for the Roman period?
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Jan 1, 2019 11:48:23 GMT -6
Let me see if I get this:
Chainmail allows for a bit of zooming from large scale to smaller and back:
In mass combat, if I have 9 LF, with 1 Hero (LF) in a unit, then when I roll combat for that unit, I roll as if there are 13 figures (130 soldiers at 10:1 or 260 at 20:1) using Appendix A, and this unit gets one extra die for moral, correct? Does it take 4 hits to kill this Hero here?
If my unit encounters another unit (HF), and the unit has a Superhero with them, the Superhero can come after my Hero, and we then handle that one to one battle on Appendix E (Fantasy Combat Table) correct?
Let's say I get lucky and my Hero defeats Superhero in single combat. Then my opponent gets silly and goes all in, trying to single my Hero out again with his HF troops. How we go to Man-to-Man Appendix B. Now it takes 4 hits to kill the Hero and he gets 4 attacks per round on the HF who are engaging him. This last scenario is the one I'm not sure about.
I'm not looking for perfect here, just workable.
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on Feb 22, 2019 4:35:24 GMT -6
Does it mean that a Super Hero is immune to Dragon fire?
|
|
|
Post by angantyr on Feb 22, 2019 16:25:25 GMT -6
Does it mean that a Super Hero is immune to Dragon fire? It says no such thing - "...who is saved on a two dice roll of 7 or better." Roll 2 dice for the Super hero. If the total is 7 or more, he's fine. If 6 or less, he is dead. The text is pretty clear on this point - no immunity is stated or even implied.
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on Feb 22, 2019 16:40:15 GMT -6
One can easily assume that value of 7 pertains to a Wizard only.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Feb 22, 2019 17:18:50 GMT -6
I agree that the grammar used suggests the clause only applies to the Wizard. If it applied to all three it would be "except another Dragon, Super Hero, or Wizard, who are saved on a two dice roll of 7 or better". The use of "who is" is singular, and thus should only apply to the Wizard. But it could be imprecise language.
The same text appears in the earliest Chainmail text I have access to (2nd edition) and the latest (3rd edition).
|
|
|
Post by increment on Feb 22, 2019 17:57:32 GMT -6
The clarification from Gygax on this matter in IW:v5n1 reads "Super Heroes have the same saving throw (7 or better) as Dragons and Wizards when struck by Dragon Fire."
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Feb 22, 2019 19:43:24 GMT -6
Thanks! Glad there was text actually clarifying this.
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on Feb 23, 2019 4:33:36 GMT -6
OK, another one: Pretty much the same - I guess "can" applies to both of them: a magic user and a Super Hero (not only to the latter)? Second question - how to understand the term "magic user" in the above quotation? Is it a Wizard?
What does it stand for?
|
|
|
Post by derv on Feb 23, 2019 10:02:09 GMT -6
Some deduction should be able to answer these questions. Beyond grammar and sentence structure you should ask why these figures are included in the statement. So, in the above example of the Dragon, you are asking if the Wizard and Superhero should be included in the list that is mentioned in the next paragraph. The answer would seem to be, no. Those who are impervious (immune) to dragon fire are "certain elementals". The question you didn't ask is, are Balrogs included in this immunity to dragon fire? A figure only mentioned in the dragons order of preference for attacks. The answer would seem to be, no, but I would be inclined to say, yes.
The Basilisk example is a little more explicit in who is being implied- it gives three lists of saving throws. Only one of the lists has to do with exceptions to a gaze attack. The second list gives exceptions to "touching" or being "touched". What isn't abundantly clear is whether a gaze attack is the same thing as being touched. Since no range is given and the text says they have no other form of attack, I would say, yes. So, which list do you think is being implied for the magic user and superhero?
I'll just add that wizards and superheroes are considered exceptional type figures in Chainmail, considering the source material it is seeking to emulate. So, they will always out perform figures like hobbits, dwarves, and orcs.
|
|
thecube
Newly-Registered User
Posts: 11
|
Post by thecube on Feb 23, 2019 13:40:37 GMT -6
"IW:v5n1" stands for:
International Wargamer Vol. 5 No. 1
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 23, 2019 16:19:13 GMT -6
Second question - how to understand the term "magic user" in the above quotation? Is it a Wizard? Presumably "magic user" aggregates the various grades of Wizard? I don't have the 1st ed. but the very first statement in the description says: "This class includes Sorcerers and Warlocks", so perhaps in the 1st ed. it was: Wizard, Sorcerer, and Warlock. In the 2nd ed. we have Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Magician. In the 3rd ed. we have Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Magician, and Seer.
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on Feb 23, 2019 16:58:27 GMT -6
Those who are impervious (immune) to dragon fire are "certain elementals". "Certain Elementals are also impervious to Dragon Fire". I suppose "also" in this case means "in addition" (not "too", "as well")? Take note that I'm not a native English speaker and I haven't played Chainmail with Gary 50 years ago. However, since there has been some inquiry back in 1972, I guess the text posed some issues to a wargamer community. International Wargamer Vol. 5, No. 1 - is this available online? As for the Basilisk - another interesting piece. I'd say that "touch" is a different effect, so Hero, Superhero & Wizard need to roll 7. waysoftheearth "Magic user" is a wider category, I got that. But who gets the saving throw versus gaze - all magic users (including Sorcerer, Warlock, Magician, Seer) or just the most powerful one?
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Feb 23, 2019 18:31:28 GMT -6
I looked yesterday and didn't find any issues of International Wargamer available online. Jon (increment) shows an excerpt in this blog post: playingattheworld.blogspot.com/2017/10/spellcasting-before-d-in-midgard.htmlHe also indicates in that article that the wizard-types were not present in the 1st edition of Chainmail, only first appearing in the Chainmail Additions in IWv5n1
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 23, 2019 20:43:33 GMT -6
"Magic user" is a wider category, I got that. But who gets the saving throw versus gaze - all magic users (including Sorcerer, Warlock, Magician, Seer) or just the most powerful one? The text says: Basilisk (Cockatrice): These horrible beasts will turn to stone anyone, except a magic user or a Super Hero (can be saved by a two dice roll of 6 or better), who looks at their face. So.. "will turn to stone anyone, except a magic user" means we're not just talking about Wizards, we're talking about all magic users. What it strictly says (to me) is that magic users will not be turned to stone, and superheroes might not be turned to stone (saving on a throw of 6+). However, we have to allow for EGG's unique use of grammar. Not to mention the next sentence says: "Any figure that … is touched … must throw to be saved." Note: any figure. So what it presumably implies is that magic users and superheroes collectively might not be turned to stone, with wizards and superheroes both requiring a throw of 6+ (on 2d6) to be saved. If this is the case, the lesser magic-users would presumably have their saving throws penalised according to their grade (i.e., a sorcerer acts as a wizard-1, so would require a throw of 7+ to save, etc.). Noting that "all others need 7 or better to be saved", the least powerful magic users would seem to be vulnerable to this effect. My 2 c.p.
|
|
|
Post by increment on Feb 23, 2019 20:44:08 GMT -6
The term "magic user" came into the system when it started to get confusing to talk about Wizards - did you mean all wizards, or just that highest Wizard rank? "Magic user" just meant you were one of those guys who used magic. The name stuck, as it turns out.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Feb 23, 2019 21:01:20 GMT -6
Those who are impervious (immune) to dragon fire are "certain elementals". "Certain Elementals are also impervious to Dragon Fire". I suppose "also" in this case means "in addition" (not "too", "as well")? "certain elementals" would include fire elementals and efreeti. It would also include earth elementals because these are of the same class as the fire elementals (see descriptions p.36). Impervious means there is no need for a saving throw. The attack will have no effect. As for the Basilisk - another interesting piece. I'd say that "touch" is a different effect, so Hero, Superhero & Wizard need to roll 7. Well, I can only point to the fact that the basilisk is not found on the Fantasy Reference Table (where I would expect to find a range if not mentioned in it's description) nor the Fantasy Combat Table (where they are said to defend as lycanthropes).
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on Feb 24, 2019 2:46:34 GMT -6
derv"The Basilisk and Cockatrice are probably best included as Dragons" (2 ed., p. 32).
|
|
|
Post by derv on Feb 24, 2019 8:38:44 GMT -6
I'm looking at 3rd ed. Not sure of where your reference is mentioned- it does not seem to be included in the 3rd ed.
If we take that reference to be of any substance it begs the question of how you intend to use it. Will you be giving the Basilisk a 9" cone shaped gaze attack? Will you have them roll an attack on the Fantasy Combat Table? Or will they attack as 4 HH on the Appendix A Table? Possibly both. Will they have the morale effect of a Dragon? It's all a possibility.
You could experiment with it in playing a scenario. I have a feeling it will lead to a lopsided and boring game.
|
|