|
Post by derv on Jan 5, 2021 20:16:03 GMT -6
Due to recent discussions I thought it would be nice to show a blend of Bath's early rules with Patt's rules for Middle Earth. Battle of Pelonnor Fields in Miniature is a complete rule set ready for play. Cheers
|
|
flightcommander
Level 6 Magician
"I become drunk as circumstances dictate."
Posts: 370
|
Post by flightcommander on Jan 5, 2021 22:48:19 GMT -6
This is, at first glance (ie I haven't read through it, I just oggled it and then downloaded it to savor later), excellent. Exalt!
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jan 6, 2021 6:07:19 GMT -6
derv, I have no idea where you find the time to do this stuff, but it's excellent!
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jan 6, 2021 9:02:53 GMT -6
This is cool. It makes me want to create tokens for it and try it out.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 6, 2021 16:26:29 GMT -6
This is, at first glance (ie I haven't read through it, I just oggled it and then downloaded it to savor later), excellent. Exalt! Thanks, glad you liked it. derv, I have no idea where you find the time to do this stuff, but it's excellent! For me, it's more of a diversion that I enjoy doing once in a while. This was just a matter of syncretizing the two rule sets and spiffying it up with a few illustrations and a cover. I should probably give increment a head nod for sharing Pratt's rules on his blog in the first place. This is cool. It makes me want to create tokens for it and try it out. That's my primary motive with this stuff. I hope you do. A good option for relatively inexpensive Middle Earth figures is the 1/72 plastic figures by Dark Alliance. They have dwarves, elves, orcs, goblins, wargs, undead warriors, and trolls. They even make two separate sets of Balrogs, not to mention an orc catapult and crew set. Most sets run about $12. I find Bath's rules give just about the right mix of simplicity along with calculations and dice throwing at the table.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 9, 2021 14:39:33 GMT -6
Should Minas Tirith Fall: A Supplement to the Bath Patt Rules can be ogled here. It includes a follow up scenario, a couple more figure types, and rules for enchanted weapons.
|
|
flightcommander
Level 6 Magician
"I become drunk as circumstances dictate."
Posts: 370
|
Post by flightcommander on Jan 9, 2021 20:09:16 GMT -6
Commence ogling!
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 13, 2021 16:44:04 GMT -6
Anyone who has attempted to play the scenarios may have noticed that I did not include any rules for formation or facing. I don't really enforce any in this sort of game. Most maneuvers of troops in formation I have found involves wheeling rather than face changes. When wheeling we do measure from the outside figure and deduct from the units total move. Otherwise, I allow changes without penalty and rely on the morale checks to dictate such things. If you do want something a little more concrete, Bath used half moves. A unit was allowed one formation or face change per half move. The other thing I did not include was any rules for breeching the castle or keep. You'll have to come up with your own rulings on that one. With escalades, something like for every five figures in contact with wall an attempt can be made to set ladders. On a roll of 1-3 ladder is set and up to 5 figures can ascend on the following turn. Defenders can push ladders off on a roll of 1-2. One attempt per five figures on the wall. Lastly, neither scenario included any objectives or victory conditions. Patt didn't list any in the original write up. But, I do think they are worthwhile in keeping a game from becoming a simple slug fest. In "Should Minas Tirith Fall" the side of Sauron wants to retain 30% of their force and break through the Gondor infantry to reach the Keep. Likewise, a victory condition for the side of Gondor is for Aragorn to reach the keep. If Aragorn is lost in battle, the best that can occur is a draw. That's what happened to me when my son and I played. I put the Balrog on the table during set up just to put my son on edge I guess we can't attach photos any longer? or I'd share a couple.
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on Jan 16, 2021 9:24:53 GMT -6
dervYou did a great job. For sure I'll give your rules a shot, maybe with my collection of kinder-surprise figurines Exalt to you!
|
|
|
Post by rsdean on Jan 16, 2021 11:11:38 GMT -6
A good option for relatively inexpensive Middle Earth figures is the 1/72 plastic figures by Dark Alliance. They have dwarves, elves, orcs, goblins, wargs, undead warriors, and trolls. They even make two separate sets of Balrogs, not to mention an orc catapult and crew set. Most sets run about $12. They also have Corsairs (of not-Umbar, one presumes), Steppe Warriors (aka Rohirrim), and Eastern Tribes (Easterlings). One is still left deciding which historical figures look like Gondorians to one’s taste. When I need a few boxes, I usually deal with the Michigan Toy Soldier company...
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 16, 2021 11:25:42 GMT -6
derv You did a great job. For sure I'll give your rules a shot, maybe with my collection of kinder-surprise figurines Exalt to you! Thank you. You will find that I took a couple liberties in meshing the rules. Primarily with the Heroes and Wizard. Patt says a Hero is "worth 10 points (5 men)". The deduction is that a Wizard is worth 10 men. But, as you will notice, infantry is only worth 1 point per man and cavalry is worth 2 points. So, I reconciled this by differentiating between melee, while attached to a unit, with melee, while fighting alone. Also, in Bath's rules a regiment is typically made up of 20 figures for infantry and 15 figures for cavalry. Essentially, in this fantasy game I tried to match what I thought Patt had on the table. A player should break up their units the way they want, but they should be no smaller than two ranks of five men (10 figures). What's interesting is not only the similarities with Chainmail that Jon pointed out in his blog post, but also the disparities that were not highlighted. A distinction in Chainmail is the Fantasy Combat Table. This appears to be whole cloth (unless another rule set surfaces) and does have direct correlations to what became the ACS in D&D. In Patt's rules figures like the Dragon are not given a point value. They are unique and function outside of the rule system you are otherwise using in that they require special rules for who they will attack, how they do damage, and how they can be killed. They appear to be solely under a referees control. This is echoed with the "marauding dragon" mentioned by Gygax in The Battle of Brown Hills (Wargamers Newsletter Nov 1971), a figure not listed in the Order of Battle for either side. You can find the original write up here. Anyway, I hope you post about your experience if you run a game.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 16, 2021 11:28:31 GMT -6
One is still left deciding which historical figures look like Gondorians to one’s taste. I ended up using Airfix Romans that I already had.
|
|
|
Post by rsdean on Jan 16, 2021 12:55:20 GMT -6
I ended up using Airfix Romans that I already had. Well, that certainly works. Honestly, they are a little dubious as Romans, so they are probably better off as Gondorians anyway. My personal view of Gondorians remains influenced by early metal figure manufacturers, so I’d be looking for something with chainmail and round shields. Given the scarcity of such sets out there, though, I might go with something like HaT El Cid Spanish. (Not sure how available they are at the moment...my younger son is ever so slowly working on an El Cid project using them, and we have been discussing figure availability recently.) I wish I could find a couple of boxes of the most recent productions of the Airfix Romans and Britons though; I have a taste to do the “other” retro-Airfix sword-and-shield project, to go along with my Sheriff of Nottingham and Robin Hood medieval forces.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 16, 2021 13:53:44 GMT -6
I wish I could find a couple of boxes of the most recent productions of the Airfix Romans and Britons though; I have a taste to do the “other” retro-Airfix sword-and-shield project, to go along with my Sheriff of Nottingham and Robin Hood medieval forces. Yeah, the Airfix Ancient Britons is another option. I used two of those figures to represent Theoden and Aragorn. There again, the shields are a little odd, a mix of round and rectangular.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jan 16, 2021 18:44:19 GMT -6
Great production values derv. I love the typewriter-esque font. Which version of Bath's rules is this based on?
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 16, 2021 20:33:50 GMT -6
Great production values derv . I love the typewriter-esque font. Which version of Bath's rules is this based on? There are basically three iterations that I know, though I think Bath's rules went through continual development over time. The one most may know, because it's found in John Curry's reprint of Tony Bath's, Ancient Wargaming that included Setting Up a Wargames Campaign, is Peltast and Pila. This was first published by Tabletop Warfare Ltd. in 1976. I referenced these. An earlier set of rules and the one that I primarily used was featured in Featherstone's, War Games: Battle Manoeuvres with Model Soldiers, first published in 1962. Featherstone was one of Bath's first war game opponents and had an ongoing comradery, though not really a fan of Bath's fantasy campaign elements. The earliest Bath rules can be found in Curry's, More Wargaming Pioneers Vol.4. They first appeared in the BMSS Bulletin in 1956. I didn't really use these, but they're worth looking at for comparisons sake. Otherwise, people here may find the section in Pioneers Vol.4 on Bath's melee rules for individual figures of interest. These were basically favored figures that he classed as "Champions" and each could be rated at different point values. Some other bits found in Curry's section on Bath are references to Jon Peterson's PatW and Gygax's crediting Bath in the International Wargamer magazine where Chainmail appeared. This volume also contains Korn's later SOTC rules. So, definitely worth acquiring in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by rsdean on Jan 17, 2021 5:27:58 GMT -6
There are also the Bath 1966 Medieval Rules in Curry’s volume Donald Featherstone’s Lost Tales. (I thought someone here on OD&D74 pointed me to that a month or three back...). I haven’t absorbed them, so can’t comment on crossovers.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jan 17, 2021 10:46:22 GMT -6
Great production values derv . I love the typewriter-esque font. Which version of Bath's rules is this based on? There are basically three iterations that I know, though I think Bath's rules went through continual development over time. The one most may know, because it's found in John Curry's reprint of Tony Bath's, Ancient Wargaming that included Setting Up a Wargames Campaign, is Peltast and Pila. This was first published by Tabletop Warfare Ltd. in 1976. I referenced these. An earlier set of rules and the one that I primarily used was featured in Featherstone's, War Games: Battle Manoeuvres with Model Soldiers, first published in 1962. Featherstone was one of Bath's first war game opponents and had an ongoing comradery, though not really a fan of Bath's fantasy campaign elements. The earliest Bath rules can be found in Curry's, More Wargaming Pioneers Vol.4. They first appeared in the BMSS Bulletin in 1956. I didn't really use these, but they're worth looking at for comparisons sake. Otherwise, people here may find the section in Pioneers Vol.4 on Bath's melee rules for individual figures of interest. These were basically favored figures that he classed as "Champions" and each could be rated at different point values. Some other bits found in Curry's section on Bath are references to Jon Peterson's PatW and Gygax's crediting Bath in the International Wargamer magazine where Chainmail appeared. This volume also contains Korn's later SOTC rules. So, definitely worth acquiring in my opinion. Thanks, derv. I have a digital copy (via Amazon Cloud Reader) of Curry's reprint of the Featherstone's War Games (1962). Did you use an original hardcopy or Curry's reprint of this? I am cautious of relying on Curry's reprints for historical analysis because they may include undocumented "revisions" (War Games says "Revised Edition July 2008").
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jan 17, 2021 10:48:09 GMT -6
There are also the Bath 1966 Medieval Rules in Curry’s volume Donald Featherstone’s Lost Tales. (I thought someone here on OD&D74 pointed me to that a month or three back...). I haven’t absorbed them, so can’t comment on crossovers. We had a thread about Bath's 1966 rules a few years ago, although it was more focused on his Ancients rules, which are not in Curry's "Lost Tales": odd74.proboards.com/thread/11838/tony-baths-1966-rules
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 17, 2021 12:06:33 GMT -6
Did you use an original hardcopy or Curry's reprint of this? I am cautious of relying on Curry's reprints for historical analysis because they may include undocumented "revisions" (War Games says "Revised Edition July 2008"). Yeah, Curry's reprints often suffer in the editing department. The excerpt I mention in Pioneers vol.4 on Champion figures is a little unclear for dating, for example. I do own an original hard cover first edition fourth printing of War Games. The "Medieval" rule set rsdean mentions is actually pretty similar to the ancient rules found in War Games, with some elaborations. I was curious about that because Featherstone's book was so influential on the hobby and continued to remain in print for some time, well overlapping the date of those 1966 rules. But, as I said, I did take some liberties with Bath's rules. So, it is better stated to be a variant rather than a pure reproduction. Some of this I did to match Patt's examples and some I did for simplicity and playability (the procedure for catapults and fire balls for instance). I think the important part to notice in Patt's rules is his use of points when referring to melee. This is not a system that uses Chainmailesque type combat tables to derive probabilities. Instead, it involves simple calculations, like those found in Bath's rules. I think it is significant that Gygax credits Bath in an early publication of LGTSA rules in IW and that there are so many similarities between Patt's rules and the Fantasy Supplement. It all seems very tidy to me.
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Jan 18, 2021 10:39:39 GMT -6
Due to recent discussions I thought it would be nice to show a blend of Bath's early rules with Patt's rules for Middle Earth. Battle of Pelonnor Fields in Miniature is a complete rule set ready for play. Cheers This is wonderful. Great work!
|
|
|
Post by rredmond on Jan 18, 2021 14:44:27 GMT -6
Is this a wargame ala "Little Wars" or something? What's the (summary of the) back story?
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 18, 2021 17:03:59 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by rredmond on Jan 18, 2021 17:06:03 GMT -6
Thank ya!
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 18, 2021 17:09:15 GMT -6
Like I told Fin, I probably should have linked to Jon's work to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by rredmond on Jan 18, 2021 17:15:55 GMT -6
It's all good! I started with 1e around 1979 or 80 when I was 11 or so. That's what I played mostly, and I enjoy it best when it's REAL rules light. So when I found some guys in the South Jersey area who set up and OD&D game, it was awesome and I realized that I was a grognard born too late. I never got into wargaming, but I definitely like to hear about it, especially with respect to the origins of D&D. Good times!
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 18, 2021 17:19:12 GMT -6
I never got into wargaming, but I definitely like to hear about it, especially with respect to the origins of D&D. Good times! It's never too late
|
|