Man to Man 1 vs 1 only??

[tom]

I cannot help but notice every time i read the man to man melee rules which use the words “when 2 figures are within melee distance…” its recently made me consider that when more than 2 figures are involved in a single melee then order of striking is disregarded and the melee would be handled using the normal combat tables and all combatants roll allotted dice before casualties are extracted. BUT the man to man rules go on to say that mounted men’s horses can attack on the 2nd round and they can attack a different opponent to their rider (which obviously implies more than 2 combatants in the melee) the horses attack is based on weapon versus armour so the man-to-man table is used. So why the heck do the man-to-man melee rules have such an emphasis on 2 figures fighting when any number of figures might be involved in a single melee. For me this is one of the hardest rules for me to reconcile when figuring out this system. Anybody have any insight?

[waysoftheearth]

I agree it's a bit frustrating that the M2M rules are so narrow in scope.

CM does have a section on assaulting castle walls with ladders (CM2 p20) which alludes to M2M combat involving multiple men, but it is pretty thin sauce.

In most of the OD&D-centric examples I can think of a melee is shown as comprising a collection of 1:1 or 1:many contests, each handled individually, rather than the melee being dealt with as a single many:many situation.

Holmes (p18) summarises it neatly as: <<When the party of adventurers is attacked by several monsters, all may be involved in the melee, but the hand-to-hand battles must be fought one at a time and then the result imagined as if all were going on simultaneously>>. This was (presumably) written by Holmes, but it was left unchanged by Gygax when he edited the Holmes ms.


The example combat in SR#1.2 (1975) is between a hero and 8 orcs. Yes, it uses the Alternative system (d6 to determine initiative; d20 to determine hits), but it remains a case of one hero versus several normal types (so one vs many combat). Despite the FAQ article's generally woolliness, a notable point that isn't mentioned in M2M is that the hero's attacks/hits are randomly distributed among the many possible targets.


EPT (1975) has several snippets of combat examples, including this one (p33):

Fighting three Kurghá (one die creatures), a 9th level warrior rolls four dice. If he scores a total of 18 or better, he kills them all, since their maximum total hit dice cannot exceed 18 points. A 4th level fighter does 2 dice damage to these same creatures, and the referee then rolls to determine the hit dice the three Kurghá can take: let us say a 6, a 4, and a 2, totalling 12. If the fighter scored a total of 10 on his two dice, he would kill the two weakest Kurghá and leave the strongest one with only 2 points remaining!

This is talking about allocating damage, but it re-iterates (two cases of) a higher level fighter attacking multiple opponents. In this case damage isn't allocated to randomly selected targets (per SR#1.2), but is assigned to the weakest enemy first, with no wasted damage points!


FWIW, the Daluhn ms (1973?) also includes a (fairly loose) combat example:

Nargarth, a fierce Level 3 dwarf out with some friends, runs into a small band of those common vermin, Kobolds. Shouting with glee he whips out his battle axe and rushes to the attack. According to Table 13, Kobolds have armor class rating of 6. Since our dwarf is Level 3, he needs a percentage of 60 to hit. The Referee cuts the cards and draws a seven and a two, for a percentage of 72. Therefore, Narsarth has connected. In advance, the Referee has rolled Total Hits for the Kobold, and came up with 3. He now rolls for Nargarth, and gets a 5. Nargarth has killed his Kobold, and is eagerly looking around for more. Meanwhile, his friends all take their chops in turn with their weapons. After they are through the Kobolds (if any are left and they haven't fled in terror) get their chops, using Table 15. When they are through, Nargarth can swing again...

This isn't by TSR of course. It also pre-dates Holmes, but appears to demonstrate the same pattern of resolving a melee as a collection of individual contests; one contest for the dwarf, and one contest for each of his friends. Notably, this example does not have Nargarth striking three blows as a normal man versus the Kobolds, so the use of normal combat appears to have escaped the author.


Hope that helps some

[tom]

Oct 11, 2023 16:59:34 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

I agree it's a bit frustrating that the M2M rules are so narrow in scope.

CM does have a section on assaulting castle walls with ladders (CM2 p20) which alludes to M2M combat involving multiple men, but it is pretty thin sauce.

In most of the OD&D-centric examples I can think of a melee is shown as comprising a collection of 1:1 or 1:many contests, each handled individually, rather than the melee being dealt with as a single many:many situation.

Holmes (p18) summarises it neatly as: <<When the party of adventurers is attacked by several monsters, all may be involved in the melee, but the hand-to-hand battles must be fought one at a time and then the result imagined as if all were going on simultaneously>>. This was (presumably) written by Holmes, but it was left unchanged by Gygax when he edited the Holmes ms.


The example combat in SR#1.2 (1975) is between a hero and 8 orcs. Yes, it uses the Alternative system (d6 to determine initiative; d20 to determine hits), but it remains a case of one hero versus several normal types (so one vs many combat). Despite the FAQ article's generally woolliness, a notable point that isn't mentioned in M2M is that the hero's attacks/hits are randomly distributed among the many possible targets.


EPT (1975) has several snippets of combat examples, including this one (p33):

Fighting three Kurghá (one die creatures), a 9th level warrior rolls four dice. If he scores a total of 18 or better, he kills them all, since their maximum total hit dice cannot exceed 18 points. A 4th level fighter does 2 dice damage to these same creatures, and the referee then rolls to determine the hit dice the three Kurghá can take: let us say a 6, a 4, and a 2, totalling 12. If the fighter scored a total of 10 on his two dice, he would kill the two weakest Kurghá and leave the strongest one with only 2 points remaining!

This is talking about allocating damage, but it re-iterates (two cases of) a higher level fighter attacking multiple opponents. In this case damage isn't allocated to randomly selected targets (per SR#1.2), but is assigned to the weakest enemy first, with no wasted damage points!


FWIW, the Daluhn ms (1973?) also includes a (fairly loose) combat example:

Nargarth, a fierce Level 3 dwarf out with some friends, runs into a small band of those common vermin, Kobolds. Shouting with glee he whips out his battle axe and rushes to the attack. According to Table 13, Kobolds have armor class rating of 6. Since our dwarf is Level 3, he needs a percentage of 60 to hit. The Referee cuts the cards and draws a seven and a two, for a percentage of 72. Therefore, Narsarth has connected. In advance, the Referee has rolled Total Hits for the Kobold, and came up with 3. He now rolls for Nargarth, and gets a 5. Nargarth has killed his Kobold, and is eagerly looking around for more. Meanwhile, his friends all take their chops in turn with their weapons. After they are through the Kobolds (if any are left and they haven't fled in terror) get their chops, using Table 15. When they are through, Nargarth can swing again...

This isn't by TSR of course. It also pre-dates Holmes, but appears to demonstrate the same pattern of resolving a melee as a collection of individual contests; one contest for the dwarf, and one contest for each of his friends. Notably, this example does not have Nargarth striking three blows as a normal man versus the Kobolds, so the use of normal combat appears to have escaped the author.


Hope that helps some

This is incredibly helpful, thank you. It is rather strange that every time Gary gave an example of a melee anywhere it was nearly always 1 figure versus several of a single type so it just leaves so many questions regarding melee involving many figures, but the number of figures is not enough to constitute 1:20 combat. In fact, there doesn't appear to be any hard and fast rule for how many figures should be involved before 1:20 scale is applicable. I guess from a wargaming perspective this would be up to the players commanding the forces.

I was playtesting a small OD&D encounter involving a party of 12 adventurers (various character types plus 3 heavy foot retainers) versus 5 zombies. The thought of hashing this out using the Alternative Combat System seemed a bit monotonous so I tried it with the Chainmail 1:20 melee rules and it was much less fiddly, I just ruled the party where a unit of 12 heavy foot (party where moving at heavy foot speed) and the zombies 5 heavy foot (Monster & Treasure states that they attack as Orcs) I made the rolls using the Chainmail Combat Tables (heavy foot versus heavy foot) so 5 & 6 where kills and only the 1st rank could attack.

On the second round of melee unopposed figures where able to move into rear and flank positions (as per 1:20 combat) and able to fight at the next highest class (armoured foot versus heavy foot in this case). It got a little complicated because of this, but overall ran fairly smooth and didn't take much time to resolve the combat.

The cleric could attempt to turn the zombies during the movement phase, and casualties where extracted at random when it was unclear which specific figures had been killed. As all figures involved where less than 2 HD these one hit kills did not really make much difference regarding the outcome, I don't think.

It was really unclear how to handle post melee morale as zombies never check morale, so I just wasn't sure how to handle this. Calculate as normal and if the side with the lower score is the zombies ignore it? But this begs the question of whether player characters in 1:20 combat are subject to the rules of a post-melee morale?

[waysoftheearth]

I'll re-read your full post tomorrow, but this jumped out at me:

Oct 12, 2023 1:29:14 GMT -6 tom said:

I was playtesting a small OD&D encounter involving a party of 12 adventurers (various character types plus 3 heavy foot retainers) versus 5 zombies.

Assuming many things I don't know about the above situation, I'll say off the cuff that 5 seems to be too few Zs

UWA says the number of monsters encountered underground is a function of dungeon level and number of players. One read of p11 is that 12 players would attract four times the "basic number" of monsters. Assuming (again) zombies are 2 HD and the encounter occurs on DL 2, then 12 players would attract 4-24 zombies if the basic number is 1-6 (cos everyone had six-sided dice) or 4-16 if the basic number is 1-4 (as it appears to be in MTA, which has 1-4 Zs on DL#1, 2-8 on DL#2, and 4-16 on DL#4).

If you believe any of that, then 12 players prolly need to see around 10-14 zombies for the full enjoyment

FWIW, here is a battle report I ran a little while back: 7 players vs 8 zombies (2 HD) on DL 2.
Short version: the players won fairly easily.

[tom]

Oct 12, 2023 6:30:00 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

I'll re-read your full post tomorrow, but this jumped out at me:

Oct 12, 2023 1:29:14 GMT -6 tom said:

I was playtesting a small OD&D encounter involving a party of 12 adventurers (various character types plus 3 heavy foot retainers) versus 5 zombies.

Assuming many things I don't know about the above situation, I'll say off the cuff that 5 seems to be too few Zs

UWA says the number of monsters encountered underground is a function of dungeon level and number of players. One read of p11 is that 12 players would attract four times the "basic number" of monsters. Assuming (again) zombies are 2 HD and the encounter occurs on DL 2, then 12 players would attract 4-24 zombies if the basic number is 1-6 (cos everyone had six-sided dice) or 4-16 if the basic number is 1-4 (as it appears to be in MTA, which has 1-4 Zs on DL#1, 2-8 on DL#2, and 4-16 on DL#4).

If you believe any of that, then 12 players prolly need to see around 10-14 zombies for the full enjoyment

FWIW, here is a battle report I ran a little while back: 7 players vs 8 zombies (2 HD) on DL 2.
Short version: the players won fairly easily.

Haha you are absolutely right about the number of zombies. The situation that led to 5 is a peculiar one which highlights further mysteries pertaining to Gary Gygax and his rules

As part of my play test I was using the random the wilderness generator from the AD&D DMG Appendices to generate wilderness on the fly, as well as randomly determining inhabitation. The party entered a hex which (according to the rolls) contained an inhabitation. Specifically a "single dwelling" and my population roll was 5. The AD&D DMG doesn't have any guidance or rules on how to determine what a "single dwelling" might be and because I was playing OD&D I decided a roll on the random wilderness monster tables would make the most sense. As this was an inhabitation it also made sense to roll on the City encounters column. The result ended up being zombies. So I decided the party had stumbled upon an old mausoleum which had 5 zombies inside, probably still acting upon the commands of some long dead magic-user.

[waysoftheearth]

Oct 12, 2023 1:29:14 GMT -6 tom said:

It is rather strange that every time Gary gave an example of a melee anywhere it was nearly always 1 figure versus several of a single type so it just leaves so many questions regarding melee involving many figures, but the number of figures is not enough to constitute 1:20 combat. In fact, there doesn't appear to be any hard and fast rule for how many figures should be involved before 1:20 scale is applicable. I guess from a wargaming perspective this would be up to the players commanding the forces.

I agree that hard and fast rules are rarely the norm; everything is up to the ref. However, there are a few interesting reads on this question that come to mind...

EPT (p32) has a section on Larger Combats:

It will become necessary from time to time to split up larger groups of beings for combat purposes. For example, ten player characters and a hundred of their hired troops meet three hundred bandits! To roll hit dice, etc. for each man would take far too much time. nonplayer characters may thus be grouped into sets of five or ten (or even larger) men and “fought” as one man. If, for example, such troops are divided into units of ten, the referee rolls ten 6-sided dice and totals the score. one of the players then rolls ten dice for his ten nonplayer troops and totals that score. only one “hit” throw is made per group. A miss indicates that all ten have missed or done no significant damage. If a hit is made, a single 6-sided die is thrown, and its score is multiplied by 10 and subtracted from the target unit’s total hit dice points. When either side has lost all of its hit points, the unit is considered slain to a man. The victors then divide their original hit points by 10 (the number of men in the unit) and compare this with the unit’s remaining points. For each tenth of the original total left, one man is left alive. Fractions are rounded upwards. E.g. if the total original hit points for the group had been 40, then 4 points remaining after the melee would indicate one man left alive, 8 points would indicate 2 men, etc.

The Introduction to S&S (p1) is essentially a short essay on the topic, and suggests that 1:10 is an ideal compromise. I won't quote the whole thing here (assuming you have access to S&S?)

There's also delta's Book of War, which is well worth a read.

But this begs the question of whether player characters in 1:20 combat are subject to the rules of a post-melee morale?

One of the unique things about player characters in OD&D is that they are generally not subject to morale dice. The players supply their own PC reactions and morale, rather than relying on dice throws. This is basically one of their superpowers. So, on this one, I think it depends mostly on how much you're leaning toward an RPG versus a wargame experience. There's no right or wrong; it's simply up to the referee

[hamurai]

Oct 11, 2023 10:33:37 GMT -6 tom said:

I cannot help but notice every time i read the man to man melee rules which use the words “when 2 figures are within melee distance…” its recently made me consider that when more than 2 figures are involved in a single melee then order of striking is disregarded and the melee would be handled using the normal combat tables and all combatants roll allotted dice before casualties are extracted.

This is not necessarily so (Edit: 2 figures in melee range would be the M2M trigger, but that doesn't mean it can't be more than 2, does it?), but when the numbers of melee participants exceeds 2 or 3, it's far simpler to play the very abstract normal CM system instead of every M2M combat individually.
Unless of course, a single fighter goes against a group, in which case I'd say the single fighter has bad chances to win. As I read the rules, the single attacker may be able to kill the opponent without getting a return blow from that opponent, but:

Men attacked from the rear do not return a blow on the 1st round of melee
and automatically receive 2nd blow position on the 2nd round of melee. Men
attacked from the left flank automatically receive 2nd blow position on the 1st
round of melee.

Also:

For any man attacking from the rear in melee (after accepting all pass-through
and split fire): add one to the die roll of the attacker and give the defender
no counter attack.

Which means, other "defenders" of the attacked group will not only be able to attack in the first round without having to worry about a return attack, but they also get to attack first in the next round. Attacking groups with these rules doesn't seem to be a good idea (which seems realistic).

Oct 11, 2023 10:33:37 GMT -6 tom said:

BUT the man to man rules go on to say that mounted men’s horses can attack on the 2nd round and they can attack a different opponent to their rider (which obviously implies more than 2 combatants in the melee) the horses attack is based on weapon versus armour so the man-to-man table is used. So why the heck do the man-to-man melee rules have such an emphasis on 2 figures fighting when any number of figures might be involved in a single melee.

The mounted rider is one figure, but the horse could attack another target in the above "defender group", for example.

As I read Chainmail for the first time, I was at a loss, too. I couldn't imagine situations where some of these rules would be applied and where it would matter if I used M2M or standard rules, but especially ina a siege, it will become clearer:
Imagine a group of 3 soldiers sneaking into the besieged castle through a secret tunnel, trying to open the gate before alarm can be raised. In classic CM rules, they could be dead as well as the gate guards. With M2M rules, they might be able to kill their opponents without raising too much noise and they might be able to get to the gate before they are detected.
Other situation, ladders are raised and single fighters go onto the ramparts, they might be confronted by one or two enemies and it's a crucial moment which might decide the siege - can they hold the 1 or 2 enemies until a second soldier can come up? Maybe even a third?

M2M allows to "simulate" combat in those fateful seconds where it's very important which kind of weapon is used in which situation, and who strikes first and might be able to kill an enemy without being wounded or even killed. Entire battles or campaigns might be decided with the success of one crazy action of a single person and it's a lot more entertaining to play it out as a "boss battle" in detail than just another change of blows on some battlefield (where a single person wouldn't stand a chance, probably).
At least that's how I explain its existence to me and my group.

[tom]

This does make a lot of sense and its quite a useful read, i think were the ambiguity lies is deciding on what situation triggers man to man and which ones should be fought out using standard rules.

I have read somewhere (possibly through this forum) that the man to man rules were originally published in one of the Domesday publications by Gary asking “who’s rules are these?” but the original author is anonymous. I would love to see these original rules and how they compare to the ones that made it into Chainmail.

[waysoftheearth]

See Jon Peterson's blog post here: playingattheworld.blogspot.com/2018/07/to-hit-rolls-in-individual-medieval.html

[thegreyelf]

I'm confused about the confusion, here, unless we are taking literalism to an extreme.

Any time a figure represents a single person as opposed to an entire unit, M2M rules are used.

Any time a figure represents a unit of 20 figures, standard combat is used.

Those are the only benchmarks that need be considered. Even when we're dealing with heroes and the like in mass combat, they are considered part of a unit and not individual figures unto themselves.

All of this seems clear to me in the rules unless you are, as I said, taking an EXTREME literalism in reading.

As hamurai said, 2 figures being in melee range is simply the trigger for combat. It has nothing to do with M2M or mass battle rules. Mass battles also take place whenever 2 figures enter melee range. I'm not sure why this is at issue, unless you're reading "2" as in, "no more than 2," which again is overthinking literalism. If three figures come into melee range...then you have 2 figures in melee range. This is held up by further mentions of "men" later in the text, clearly implying that multiple "men" may be involved.

Even when multiple figures are within combat range, there will be attackers and defenders. As such, the first blow rules still apply. It's just that they may apply to a side instead of a single figure - that is, all attackers or all defenders.

I am sorry if I'm coming off as caustic - I don't mean to be. I just am not sure where exactly the confusion lies.

[tom]

Nov 1, 2023 14:14:54 GMT -6 thegreyelf said:

I'm confused about the confusion, here, unless we are taking literalism to an extreme.

Any time a figure represents a single person as opposed to an entire unit, M2M rules are used.

Any time a figure represents a unit of 20 figures, standard combat is used.

Those are the only benchmarks that need be considered. Even when we're dealing with heroes and the like in mass combat, they are considered part of a unit and not individual figures unto themselves.

All of this seems clear to me in the rules unless you are, as I said, taking an EXTREME literalism in reading.

As hamurai said, 2 figures being in melee range is simply the trigger for combat. It has nothing to do with M2M or mass battle rules. Mass battles also take place whenever 2 figures enter melee range. I'm not sure why this is at issue, unless you're reading "2" as in, "no more than 2," which again is overthinking literalism. If three figures come into melee range...then you have 2 figures in melee range. This is held up by further mentions of "men" later in the text, clearly implying that multiple "men" may be involved.

Even when multiple figures are within combat range, there will be attackers and defenders. As such, the first blow rules still apply. It's just that they may apply to a side instead of a single figure - that is, all attackers or all defenders.

I am sorry if I'm coming off as caustic - I don't mean to be. I just am not sure where exactly the confusion lies.

What you're saying makes perfect sense. It's just the implication of the text is quite suggestive:


"When two figures are within melee range (3”), one or several blows will be struck. The order of striking depends upon several factors. The figure striking the first blow receives a return blow only if they fail to kill their opponent."

I added the bold text.

I simply do not understand why the text is written how it is. It's miss leading. If I wanted to imply that the trigger is any two figures then I'd have written something like "when at least two opposing figures are within melee range." and "The side striking the first blow."

To me, it just seems a very strange way to explain the rule.

These originator of these Man-to-Man rules was not Gary Gygax. They were an interpretation from rules printed in the Domesday Newsletter #7 and nobody owned up to them as far as I have gathered, so there is every chance they have not been translated well.

But as I have highlighted above previously the order of striking doesn't scale up well to combats that involve less than 20 figures but more than just a handful. You could have a unit of three figures attack a single figure but on the same turn two other figures come from the flank, then three more attack from the rear. Who goes first? It doesn't actually make sense. The lines become blurred. The whole thing breaks down. That is my issue with it and why it just feels like something is missing.

[tom]

Oct 31, 2023 16:15:32 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

See Jon Peterson's blog post here: playingattheworld.blogspot.com/2018/07/to-hit-rolls-in-individual-medieval.html

This is invaluable, thanks.

[hamurai]

Nov 8, 2023 6:49:56 GMT -6 tom said:

But as I have highlighted above previously the order of striking doesn't scale up well to combats that involve less than 20 figures but more than just a handful. You could have a unit of three figures attack a single figure but on the same turn two other figures come from the flank, then three more attack from the rear. Who goes first? It doesn't actually make sense. The lines become blurred. The whole thing breaks down. That is my issue with it and why it just feels like something is missing.

As I see these rules, they're just not meant for what you describe in your example.

You can still play the combat, though. You actually tell us who goes first:

Round 1:

1.) 3 figures attack a single figure.

2.) Two other figures come from the flank. They are the attackers in the resulting combat exchange.

3.) 3 more attack from the rear. They are the attackers in the resulting melee.

I understand the additional figures in 2) and 3) come to help the single figure in 1)
Which is relevant for how round 2 goes.

Round 2:

Are enemy figures still alive to fight? Then follow the procedure for "2nd Round and thereafter". Are the 3 attackers from 1) still attacking their first opponent (A)? Do they try to defend against the additional troops (B)? Do they split up and do both (C)?

If (A), then they all get to attack their victim first. If (B) the reinforcements get the first strike (They had the first strike against their targets last round). If (C) the original target is attacked by one or two of the original attackers and those get first strike as in (A), the others go as in (B).

[waysoftheearth]

Nov 8, 2023 6:49:56 GMT -6 tom said:

I simply do not understand why the text is written how it is.

I suspect that may simply be the Gygax writing style. He often focussed in on a case in point, where perhaps a higher level overview might have been more instructive. The M2M rules are a classic example.

Nov 8, 2023 6:49:56 GMT -6 tom said:

But as I have highlighted above previously the order of striking doesn't scale up well to combats that involve less than 20 figures but more than just a handful. You could have a unit of three figures attack a single figure but on the same turn two other figures come from the flank, then three more attack from the rear. Who goes first? It doesn't actually make sense. The lines become blurred. The whole thing breaks down. That is my issue with it and why it just feels like something is missing.

I have been playing around with the order of striking initiative for years, including trying to stress test the system with awkward edge cases. I wouldn't say "the whole thing breaks down", but more likely what's missing is the assumed (in the D&D context, at least) element of referee fiat. The referee decides what happens first. It's a feature, not a bug