Man-to-Man System - Which melee is first?

[tom]

I have an interesting question that I think this forum might be able to help me with. It's regarding the Man-to-Man combat system in Chainmail or any battle that is more of a skirmish game with less figures.

The question is as follows (assuming fantasy figures are used):

There are four goblins defending a cave against an invading force of a dwarf, elf, halfling and two normal men. The move/counter-move system is adopted. After a few rounds of movement, pass-through fire, missile fire, etc, we end up in a melee phase and the situation is the following...

    The dwarf attacked a goblin.

    The halfling has been attacked by two goblins.

    The two goblins who attacked the halfling have been attacked from the flank by the normal-men.

    The elf is attacked by a goblin.

Let us presume that nobody is fighting from above, nobody is mounted and everyone is fighting with swords, so weapon class is equal across the board.

In which order are these melees handled? The rules say that the attacker would go first, but if two goblins are attacking one halfling but also been attacked from the flank at the same time, how is this handled. The rules seem completely silent on this and depending on which melee is handled in which order, it seems to me that unfair advantages can be gained, which just doesn't seem right. I would love some clarification on this.

    

[derv]

Resolve melee in order of contact one at a time with the attackers getting the first blow. "The man striking the first blow receives a return blow only if he fails to kill his opponent."

Nullify any ideas of flank attacks when using the Man-to-Man rules. Only a rear attack would impact resolution.

[waysoftheearth]

In your example, the goblins are "defending" the cave entrance.
The description of who was attacking who wasn't quite clear to me, as it seemingly implied attacks in both past and present tense? but... assuming all the players moved into contact this turn, then:
All the players are the "attackers" meaning they all have the first blow position in the first melee round.
So all the players would attack first.
Then all the goblins, if they survived, would return a counterblow second.

If it really matters who among the players strikes first, you could use the move distance required to make contact. Presumably, moving farther (i.e., around to the flank) takes more time, and thus could differentiate the order of striking blows. But that is getting pretty nuanced and isn't explicit in CM (albeit something similar is used in S&S to determine number of rounds of melee per melee turn).

edit: alternatively, you could use dexterity order (implied by M&M p9, and explicit in Holmes)?

[tom]

Oct 4, 2023 15:37:31 GMT -6 derv said:

Resolve melee in order of contact one at a time with the attackers getting the first blow. "The man striking the first blow receives a return blow only if he fails to kill his opponent."

Nullify any ideas of flank attacks when using the Man-to-Man rules. Only a rear attack would impact resolution.

The man-to-man specifically gives rules for flanking. Flanked opponents:

"Men attacked from the left flank automatically receive 2nd blow position on the 1st

round of melee. (pg. 25)"

I don't think order of contact would work very well because after the first round of melee all figures involved who are still alive would already be in contact. If that makes sense?

[tom]

Oct 4, 2023 19:32:15 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

In your example, the goblins are "defending" the cave entrance.
The description of who was attacking who wasn't quite clear to me, as it seemingly implied attacks in both past and present tense? but... assuming all the players moved into contact this turn, then:
All the players are the "attackers" meaning they all have the first blow position in the first melee round.
So all the players would attack first.
Then all the goblins, if they survived, would return a counterblow second.

If it really matters who among the players strikes first, you could use the move distance required to make contact. Presumably, moving farther (i.e., around to the flank) takes more time, and thus could differentiate the order of striking blows. But that is getting pretty nuanced and isn't explicit in CM (albeit something similar is used in S&S to determine number of rounds of melee per melee turn).

edit: alternatively, you could use dexterity order (implied by M&M p9, and explicit in Holmes)?

I don't think declaring the goblins as the defenders in such a broad sense would work because it completely negates the use of any tactics in melee through choosing the right moment to attack or counter in order to gain advantages.

It looks as though (referring to Men & Magic) dexterity is applicable to getting off ranged attacks first, but doesn't appear to be talking about melee. I did however find something helpful in Warriors of Mars:

It provides some rules on conducting melee for "individual combats" (1:1 combat):


"Melee:

Melees are conducted differently when fought on an individual basis. Blows are given according to initiative. To determine which figure strikes first the following priorities are used -- 1. supersedes all others; 5. is used only when all others do not apply.


1. If one figure surprises the other (ambush, flank attack, rear attack, etc.) it strikes first.

2. The figure with the longer weapon strikes first.

3. The charging figure strikes first if weapons are of equal length or if the defender's is shorter.

4. If man vs. animal the man strikes first (he needs it it); if man vs. man the figure with the higher level of ability (13th, 12th, 11th, and so on down) strikes first.

5. The figure which did not just move strikes first"

Now I know that this is not OD&D but the significance of this I think is that is shows at an earlier time the way that Gary thought about smaller scale combats, skirmish games etc where one figure represents a single person. I think what we could take from this is that a sensible approach for a referee to take when attempting to adjudicate who strikes first could be the use of a priority order.

In the Alternative Combat system you'd probably want to throw out weapon length (which is essentially weapon class) as Men & Magic says this is subsumed into the Attack Matrixes. It would also make sense to throw out the man vs. animal advantage as this seems explicit to Warriors of Mars. So in OD&D priorities might look something like:

1. If one figure surprises the other (ambush, flank attack, rear attack, etc.) it strikes first.
2. The charging figure strikes first.
3. Thee figure with the higher level of ability strikes first.
4. The figure which did not just move strikes first.

What do people think about this approach? Do you think it holds any weight?

 

[rhialto]

That approach does hold weight, but what happens when a combatant with a longer weapon awaits a charge, e.g. a spear vs. a charging dagger? In my copy of M&M (p.19) only the weapons of "monster attacking" are subsumed in the attack matrix, but maybe this was clarified elsewhere to apply to all combatants?

[waysoftheearth]

Apologies if I misunderstood the goblin position in the example.
I agree that just because they are defending a gate at the narrative level doesn't imply that they must therefore wait to be charged at the tactical level. No reason why the goblins couldn't maneuver for advantage, just like the players.


That said, I agree that WoM is a useful input.

In the WoM initiative list it is possible that figure A (with sword) charges figure B (with spear).
At point 3: figure A (with sword) doesn't get the first blow (because the defenders weapon in longer),
and then at point 5: figure B (with spear) gets the first blow (because the defender didn't move).

However, if you throw out weapon length, then in the modified initiative list it wouldn't work out the same way.
Suppose again that figure A (with sword) charges figure B (with spear).
At point 2: figure A (with sword) gets the first blow, despite figure B having the spear.
Consequently, it doesn't fall thru to point 4.


I don't think it's an easy thing to throw out weapon size/reach and continue to use M2M (or WoM), because these early initiative systems are built around weapon size/reach.

FWIW, the note under the Alternative Combat System heading (M&M p19) says <<such things as speed, ferocity, and weaponry of the monster attacking are subsumed into the matrixes>> (emphasis mine). I think this is suggesting that the ref doesn't need to assign M2M weapon types to every individual monster when using the Alternative attack matrix. Even so, the ref could still use the monster size/reach to determine initiative in the M2M/WoM systems.


edit: cross-posted the same ideas at the same time as rhialto

[rhialto]

Well, your response was definitely more explicative than mine...

[derv]

Oct 5, 2023 1:39:10 GMT -6 tom said:

The man-to-man specifically gives rules for flanking. Flanked opponents:

"Men attacked from the left flank automatically receive 2nd blow position on the 1st

round of melee. (pg. 25)"

I don't think order of contact would work very well because after the first round of melee all figures involved who are still alive would already be in contact. If that makes sense?

The only thing in question is your example of the halfling, goblins, and normal men. By your explanation we already know the goblins attacked the halfling. So they get first blow against the halfling and the halfling will only get a counter blow if he is not killed.

It doesn’t matter that the goblins are flanked because they are already engaged with the halfling and it is the normal men who attacked. So normal men would have first blow any way. Resolve this after the goblins attack the halfling.

If the halfling is killed in first round, goblins will get a counter blow against normal men in second round if they are not killed first.

[tom]

Oct 5, 2023 3:38:22 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

In the WoM initiative list it is possible that figure A (with sword) charges figure B (with spear).
At point 3: figure A (with sword) doesn't get the first blow (because the defenders weapon in longer),
and then at point 5: figure B (with spear) gets the first blow (because the defender didn't move).

However, if you throw out weapon length, then in the modified initiative list it wouldn't work out the same way.
Suppose again that figure A (with sword) charges figure B (with spear).
At point 2: figure A (with sword) gets the first blow, despite figure B having the spear.
Consequently, it doesn't fall thru to point 4.


I don't think it's an easy thing to throw out weapon size/reach and continue to use M2M (or WoM), because these early initiative systems are built around weapon size/reach.

FWIW, the note under the Alternative Combat System heading (M&M p19) says <<such things as speed, ferocity, and weaponry of the monster attacking are subsumed into the matrixes>> (emphasis mine). I think this is suggesting that the ref doesn't need to assign M2M weapon types to every individual monster when using the Alternative attack matrix. Even so, the ref could still use the monster size/reach to determine initiative in the M2M/WoM systems.


edit: cross-posted the same ideas at the same time as rhialto

I never noticed the subtle implication in Men & Magic that the "subsumation" only applied to monsters. It does say in Strategic Review issue #2 though in Gary Gygax's D&D Combat Example that:

"[It] is suggested that the alternate system in D & D be used to resolve the important melees where principal figures are concerned, as well as those involving the stronger monsters. When fantastic combat is taking place there is normally only one exchange of attacks per round, and unless the rules state otherwise, a six-sided die is used to determine how many hit points damage is sustained

when an attack succeeds. Weapon type is not considered, save where magical weapons are concerned. A super hero, for example, would attack eight times only if he were fighting normal men (or creatures basically that strength, i.e., kobolds, goblins, gnomes, dwarves, and so on).

Considerations such as weapon-type, damage by weapon-type, and damage by monster attack tables appear in the first booklet to be added to the D & D series -- SUPPLEMENT I, GREYHAWK, which should be available about the time this publication is, or shortly thereafter."

I bolded the bits that I'm trying to emphasise, they were not previously emphasised by Gary, but there is an implication in there that weapon-type and damage by weapon-type are: A - not the same thing and B - not considered in combat. But having said that this doesn't destroy a case for weapon length being used to decide who gets first strike in a melee as I suppose the main consideration for weapon type in the man-to--man system is for determining the chance to hit the opponent. So I guess weapon length is potentially back on the menu again.

[waysoftheearth]

The FAQ article is itself a bit woolly, but the gist is Gygax is explaining/expanding upon the Alternative combat system. Arguably, the "weapon type is not considered" remark is explaining that the Alternative attack matrices, unlike the M2M matrix, are agnostic of weapon types.
Notice also how the FAQ article replaces M2M's initiative determination with a d6 throw.

So it seems to me (at least) two things happen there to get from the M2M system to the Alternative system:
1) initiative determination: goes from weapon size and tactical positioning -> to d6 per side,
2) hit determination: goes from weapon type vs armor type -> to attacker level vs AC.

But all that is a side track if one is attempting to resolve initiative using the M2M system?

[tom]

Oct 5, 2023 16:48:14 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

The FAQ article is itself a bit woolly, but the gist is Gygax is explaining/expanding upon the Alternative combat system. Arguably, the "weapon type is not considered" remark is explaining that the Alternative attack matrices, unlike the M2M matrix, are agnostic of weapon types.
Notice also how the FAQ article replaces M2M's initiative determination with a d6 throw.

So it seems to me (at least) two things happen there to get from the M2M system to the Alternative system:
1) initiative determination: goes from weapon size and tactical positioning -> to d6 per side,
2) hit determination: goes from weapon type vs armor type -> to attacker level vs AC.

But all that is a side track if one is attempting to resolve initiative using the M2M system?

This thread began as a question about the man-to-man system in chainmail. The reason being: I was trying to establish how order of striking in man-to-man melee was handled when the situation becomes more complex that just 1 figure fighting 1 figure. I think we've established that Warriors of Mars holds some key information about how Gary might have adjudicated these types of melees by organising striking order according to a sensible list of priorities. The reason this has then "kind of" transitioned into looking at the Alternative Combat system was because the nature of my original question was to try and establish how the order of striking would work in OD&D. So I apologise that this thread is not strictly Chainmail but rather about how Chainmail and the Alternative Combat System relate.

I think we both might have contrasting opinions on how the Alternative Combat system works. I've always been an advocate for taking the turn sequence from Chainmail (the move counter-move system) and my basis for this is that:

A. No turn sequence is provided in any of the little brown books and a copy of Chainmail is recommended in order to play.
B. In Underworld & Wilderness Adventures the section on land combat says "The basic system is that from CHAINMAIL"
C. The Man-to-Man rules in Chainmail state that "When using the Man-To-Man combat system all preceding rules apply, except where amended [...]" which means that man-to-man rules must also use the Chainmail turn sequence to organise the combat.

It does seem very plausible that Gary is trying to suggest replacing order of striking with just using initiative. So essentially initiative does not just determine who moves first but also who attacks first in the melee phase. BUT if this was the case I don't think he would have said the following in Eldritch Wizadry:

"The question of when various actions take place during a melee round often arises. In order to simply and easily satisfy the problem of when any action can take place the melee round has been further subdivided into premovement. movement of six segments, and post-movement, or eight parts in all. All melee activities, including missile fire, spell casting, movement, and combat then are assigned to some — possibly all — part of the melee turn."

My basic point here is that I don't think 2 years after the publication of D&D Gary would be suggesting such a convoluted system of dividing actions into segments if it was a case of: both sides roll initiative - whoever wins performs their movement, missile fire, attacks etc and then the other side goes. My understanding currently is that combat in OD&D would go a little something like this:

Rolls for Initiative (Both opponent's roll a die; the side with the higher score has the choice of electing to move first (Move) or last (Counter-move))
The side that has first move moves its figure(s) (checking for pass through fire at the ½ portion of the move)
The side that has last move now moves its figure(s) (checking for pass through fire at the ½ portion of the move)
Missile fire is taken.
A round of melee takes place each side making their attacks with the order of striking adjudicated by the referee (in accordance with the man-to-man system discarding weapon-class).

And I think that melee would then work something like this:

1st Round:

First blow is struck by:

the attacker, unless

the defender is fighting from above



2nd Round and thereafter:

First blow is struck by —

the side which struck first blow previously, unless

the opponent is fighting from above



When more than two figures are involved in a melee then the following priority order might be used to determine who strikes first:



If one figure surprises the other (ambush, flank attack, rear attack, etc.) it strikes first.

The charging figure strikes first if the defender's weapon is shorter or of equal length.

The figure with the higher level of ability strikes first.

The figure which did not just move strikes first.

[rhialto]

That seems like a reasonable take, though you might need to also consider the "higher level of ability" clause. If a 2nd-level MU was fighting a 1st-level Fighting-Man, would that allow the MU to strike first?

[tom]

Oct 6, 2023 3:27:33 GMT -6 rhialto said:

That seems like a reasonable take, though you might need to also consider the "higher level of ability" clause. If a 2nd-level MU was fighting a 1st-level Fighting-Man, would that allow the MU to strike first?

That's a good point. I think that rather than character level though, this would be based on the higher level of ability in combat. For instance a 1st-level Fighting-Man is 1 + 1 HD and the 2nd-level Magic-User is the same, so they are essential evenly matched. I guess in these instances you could see who has the highest dexterity score, who won the initiative at the top of the combat turn, or just dice for who strikes first. There's even an argument to be had for armour making the fighter slower, the Dexterity Adjustment rules in Eldritch Wizadry could be useful for adjudicating in this circumstance.

[rhialto]

Oct 6, 2023 7:45:38 GMT -6 tom said:

Oct 6, 2023 3:27:33 GMT -6 rhialto said:

That seems like a reasonable take, though you might need to also consider the "higher level of ability" clause. If a 2nd-level MU was fighting a 1st-level Fighting-Man, would that allow the MU to strike first?

That's a good point. I think that rather than character level though, this would be based on the higher level of ability in combat. For instance a 1st-level Fighting-Man is 1 + 1 HD and the 2nd-level Magic-User is the same, so they are essential evenly matched. I guess in these instances you could see who has the highest dexterity score, who won the initiative at the top of the combat turn, or just dice for who strikes first. There's even an argument to be had for armour making the fighter slower, the Dexterity Adjustment rules in Eldritch Wizadry could be useful for adjudicating in this circumstance.

Agree that it should be a comparison of Fighting Capability at that step, not just character level. I don't think I'd add another step before the last one (i.e., "the figure which did not just move strikes first") though.

[thegreyelf]

I think this work might be helpful. It's a comprehensive booklet explaining how Chainmail combat works with D&D, compiled back in 2010 or so by Aldarron (is he still around here?) and comprising the exegeses and scholarship of members of this forum, including:

Coffee
Finarvyn
Radagast the Brown
Stormcrow
and myself (among others).

www.grey-elf.com/compleat-chainmail.pdf

Again, it's designed to apply Chainmail combat to D&D, but the level of breakdown and scholarship can help one to very clearly understand how Man to Man combat in Chainmail works.