Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Dec 20, 2009 17:19:56 GMT -6
So, recently Daniel Collins has been theorising that the Fantasy Supplement for Chain Mail was written only for 1:1 scale combat. I have to admit, I find this assertion somewhat baffling, but here are the relevant blog posts: The Problem with the EndgameNo Heroes in WarNo Scale in Man to Man CombatNow, looking at Dragon #1, there is a conversion presented for The Battle of Five Armies for Chain Mail. Admittedly, the conversion is by Larry Smith, and not Gygax, Perren, or some other luminary, but he seems perfectly happy mixing together 20:1 and 1:1 scale. Hell, he might be using 100:1 scale from what I can see, given that he is using counters that represent five figures. The deployment list is as follows: So... what to make of all this? Are we playing this combat out using the 1:1 rules or the 1:20 rules? Clearly we have here in the "25" dwarves the 500+ mentioned on p. 252 of The Hobbit, so the general scale of the combat is 1:20, even if 1:1 rules are used, but why bother with the 1:20 combat designations if only 1:1 scale combat is intended. That seems more than a little ridiculous to me, and the fact that the Fantasy Supplement itself presents statistics clearly intended for 1:20 scale combat I cannot see how it can be concluded that it is intended for 1:1 scale. Indeed, it seems more likely to me that either the heroes fight on the 1:20 scale (making them obscenely powerful) or they switch to 1:1 scale as circumstances require. Any thoughts on this and how it interacts with the Chain Mail rules as they appear? |
|
|
|
Post by thorswulf on Dec 21, 2009 0:18:46 GMT -6
I admit I never reallly considered these problems before. A hero gets 4 hits before they are killed in the fantasy rules but they have to happen in the same turn! They don't carry over to the next turn! This could bea real problem for the hero if they are fighting 20 armored foot, or 10 heavy cavalry! I don't think Larry Smith realized how much ofa problem this would be, but it is nice to see the stats for both the 1:1 and 1:20 scale. I think I'd switch between them, but have a side table for the personal melees of a hero and his bodygaurds. It would take more time, but it would give you a chance to have some nice duels and the like in the middle of a massive battle.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Dec 21, 2009 9:40:43 GMT -6
Possibly another good place to look for Chain Mail rules "in play" is the Battle for the Moathouse event report over at Dragonsfoot. A 10:1 ratio was used there, for sure. [edit] To avoid filling up Daniel's comments section, I am copy pasting some of the dialogue from there to here, and hope to continue the discussion with input from others familiar with Chain Mail here: Delta: Smith's possible misinterpretation of Chainmail is a superb case study of the kind of misreading I talked about in my 12/5 post. Matthew: Okay, I have read those articles, doesn't seem like a whole lot of evidence to me. I would say Smith was doing pretty much what was intended with Chain Mail to play as it indicates the game is supposed to play. Suffice to say at this juncture, that I think that this is a post facto misunderstanding of the rules. Delta: Well, personally I've got to take Gygax writing "The FANTASY SUPPLEMENT written for CHAINMAIL assumed a man-for-man situation." on S&S p. 1 as authoritative. Not the only place I saw him write that, too. On top of that, acting like some of Chainmail is 1:20 and some is 1:1 doesn't make any mathematical sense (as I've written earlier). Matthew: The thing is you are ignoring the rest of what is said in Swords & Spells, where it is clear that Chain Mail was being used by Gygax with the fantasy supplement to fight larger than 1:1 battles. Indeed, when Gygax played Battle for the Moathouse back in 2006 using the Chain Mail rules it was fought on a scale of 1:10 with 1:1 heroes. It is all very well to say that the Fantasy Supplement was written on the basic assumption of 1:1 combat, but the way Chain Mail was set up was as guidelines to handle several different scales. In fact, it often makes zero sense in its translation of scale between 1:20, 1:10 and 1:1. Delta: I don't see any quotes for that, and many statements by Gygax that the opposite was true. Matthew: Well, how could he know without trying it that whilst Chain Mail "was fine for such actions, it soon became obvious that something for large-scale battles was needed" or that " Swords & Spells should provide will provide the means to provide large scale miniature fantasy battles based on Dungeons & Dragons than does Chain Mail, for example." It seems to me that he is speaking from experience of play here, not from a theoretical design standpoint. The key point in S&S is that he is creating a system to do better what Chain Mail was already being used for, and his explanation for why the Chain Mail Fantasy Supplement does not do so very well is because it was designed around 1:1 scale action. A somewhat strange assertion, since the major difference between Chain Mail and Swords & Spells is that the latter uses the Alternative Dungeons & Dragons Combat System, and the former does not. It does not seem to bother him one whit that Chain Mail specifically says to use the Man-to-Man melee table for 1:1 scale action, which makes the designations for fantasy combatants on p. 43 next to useless if the Fantasy Supplement was not intended to have utility for larger scale play. I have no reason to doubt that the Fantasy Supplement chiefly had 1:1 scale combat in mind when it was written, but as published it is a hybrid that can be used for larger scale play, was intended to be so used (to judge by its own opening claims and suggestion for mixing with siege warfare), and in practice was so used, both by fans and the designer himself. That it works better for 1:1 scale combat whilst still using the 1:10 or 1:20 scale Chain Mail combat rules is no real surprise, since most of Chain Mail looks as though it was initially developed on a man to man basis and then "scaled up" to make battles a more significant size without requiring several thousand miniatures. |
|
|
|
Post by delta on Dec 25, 2009 12:47:49 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Dec 25, 2009 13:40:19 GMT -6
Welcome Delta! Really surprised you didn't know about ODD74. There is no place better for discussing the roots of the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by chgowiz on Dec 26, 2009 11:38:35 GMT -6
Hi delta! It's great to see you here - please have an EXALT for all the wonderful things you've done with your blogs and posts about OD&D - I've learned a great deal from you.
|
|
|
|
Post by delta on Dec 26, 2009 13:25:28 GMT -6
Hi delta! It's great to see you here - please have an EXALT for all the wonderful things you've done with your blogs and posts about OD&D - I've learned a great deal from you. Thanks, gentlemen. Pleased to be here!  |
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Dec 27, 2009 13:51:05 GMT -6
Welcome aboard! As with Aldarron, I had assumed you knew about this forum, else I would have directed you here earlier! ;D
Thinking about 1:1 scale in Chain Mail and the ongoing debate we have been having about the nature of "heavy" and "light" foot in the game, it occurs to me that the note about Swiss/Landsknechts makes a good deal more sense at that scale than at 1:20 or 1:10, though there are still no parameters provided for "units sizes", which would surely be helpful.
On the whole, I think that it would be fair to say that Chain Mail is a 1:1 scale game masquerading as a 1:10 or 1:20 scale game, just by scaling up the numbers a figure represents. If at 1:1 scale a catapult represents 1 catapult, but at 1:20 scale it represents 20 catapults, then why not heroes and wizards as well? If the ordinary 1:1 scale game, for the sake of argument, assumes 1 hero for every 100 troops, then why not 10 heroes for a 1,000 troops?
|
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Dec 27, 2009 16:26:58 GMT -6
In general I agree with Matthew on this point. This is an issue with many abstracted systems. Just as in OD&D, a single die roll represents not one swing, but a full minute's worth of thrusts, chops, cuts, parries, and ripostes, in Chainmail ten minutes' worth of battles between dozens of figures are boiled down to a single fistfull of dice and a couple figures. Changing the numbers that each figure represents really has no effect whatsoever on the game, other than the imagery playing out in your mind.
That being said, I find it difficult to cotton to the idea that the Fantasy Supplement was designed strictly for man-to-man scale rules, rather than what I call the "troop type" rules. Indeed, it's impossible given the notes in the Fantasy reference table that expressly grant troop types (Lt. Foot, Hvy Foot, etc.) to certain fantasy beasties, such as goblins and orcs. If the Fantasy Supplement has no place in 1:20 combat, why do orcs attack and defend as Heavy Foot? Heavy Foot has no place in the Man to Man system.
|
|
|
|
Post by delta on Dec 27, 2009 17:25:16 GMT -6
Just as in OD&D, a single die roll represents not one swing, but a full minute's worth of thrusts, chops, cuts, parries, and ripostes, in Chainmail ten minutes' worth of battles between dozens of figures are boiled down to a single fistfull of dice and a couple figures. Changing the numbers that each figure represents really has no effect whatsoever on the game, other than the imagery playing out in your mind. I can't agree with much of this. (1) My contention is that EGG never really thought about the scale for man-to-man or OD&D in any thorough way. The "multiple thrusts" language is from AD&D, not OD&D, and contradicts ammunition usage and reasonable movement. (2) Chainmail turns are not 10 minutes, they are 1 minute (copied directly to OD&D), which bolsters the idea that it was not rationalized for OD&D. (3) Changing numbers on figures makes an enormous difference on whether a hero, wizard, dragon etc. is worth 4 men or 80 men, and on this Gygax was exceedingly clear (in his lifelong comments on Chainmail and his mechanics for Swords & Spells). It's the last point, a statistical one, that I have a sharp philosophical break with anyone willing to hand-wave it. If you're happy having no game difference from different scales, then we'll always be coming at this from different directions. |
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Dec 27, 2009 20:11:49 GMT -6
(1) My contention is that EGG never really thought about the scale for man-to-man or OD&D in any thorough way. The "multiple thrusts" language is from AD&D, not OD&D, and contradicts ammunition usage and reasonable movement. I think that it might actually be the other way around, which is to say that "scale" was an afterthought to playability in the original Chain Mail rules, which would explain why Gygax designed the Fantasy Supplement for 1:1 scale figures. That a scale of 1" = 10 yards was used regardless of whether a 1:10 or 1:20 scale was used is itself suggestive of this. (3) Changing numbers on figures makes an enormous difference on whether a hero, wizard, dragon etc. is worth 4 men or 80 men, and on this Gygax was exceedingly clear (in his lifelong comments on Chainmail and his mechanics for Swords & Spells). It's the last point, a statistical one, that I have a sharp philosophical break with anyone willing to hand-wave it. If you're happy having no game difference from different scales, then we'll always be coming at this from different directions. Right, but why does it matter whether a figure represents 1 hero or 10 heroes or 20 heroes? As far as I can see it only really matters if you only have a limited number of such characters available, which is to say in an OD&D campaign, for instance. Notably, captains in AD&D have to be 4th (or so) level or above and command 80-160 men. So if you have 800-1,600 men (40-160 figures) on the tabletop, then you have 1 figure of heroes as well. To put it another way, if you do choose to play Chain Mail at a ratio higher than 1:1 then the number of hero type figures would increase in proportion to the number of figures. Whether the company of figures you have represents 1 company, 10 companies or 20 companies will not affect the game. That is assuming that you ignore the written rules as they appear in favour of the rules as they were actually played, of course (which makes sense to do, as Chain Mail at 1:1 scale with several hundred figures would be a pain in the ass to play out using the man to man rules. |
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Dec 27, 2009 23:18:10 GMT -6
I can't agree with much of this. (1) My contention is that EGG never really thought about the scale for man-to-man or OD&D in any thorough way. The "multiple thrusts" language is from AD&D, not OD&D, and contradicts ammunition usage and reasonable movement. While the statements about series of thrusts and cuts and parries, etc., may not be explicit in OD&D, they certainly are hinted at on pages 6 and 7 of Supplement III (when actions take place during a melee round). It's also somewhat deliberately obtuse to assume that in an entire minute's worth of combat participants only get a chance to swing once. You can't lambast handwaving while supporting such a notion. The AD&D rules were a re-codifying, expansion and clarification of OD&D plus all five supplemental booklets (including Swords & Spells). Finally, though I don't have the issues handy at the moment, I'm fairly certain that the explanation of what happens during a combat round first appeared (for OD&D) in an early issue of The Dragon. I could be mistaken about that, again, as I don't have them handy atm, but I do believe that and not AD&D is where the explanation hails. Underworld & Wilderness Adventures, page 8: "Movement is in segments of approximately ten minutes. Thus it takes ten minutes to make two moves.... Two moves constitute a turn." OD&D turns are not 1 minute. OD&D rounds are 1 minute. You are correct about Chainmail Turns, however, which was my mistake. If Gygax's statements were proof, there'd be no question. Alas, what he typed and what he did have often been demonstrated to be wildly different, as stated by people who played in his games. See his oft-quoted editorial in Dragon magazine where he states that anyone not using every rule in every book is not playing AD&D, while he himself didn't use many of the rules in the books and still considered himself to be playing AD&D. Swords & Spells is a 100% new and different system from Chainmail and has little if any bearing on interpreting the latter. Indeed, Swords & Spells came about because Gygax et. al. were utterly displeased with how Chainmail handled D&D mass combat. I would argue that if hand-waving Chainmail and OD&D bothers you, you've missed the entire point, intent and philosophy behind old-school gaming, but would agree that we will always come at this from different directions. Aside from you claiming it makes a difference you haven't demonstrated how. How exactly does changing the scale from 1:20 to 1:10 mechanically affect a Hero being worth four men? How does it change actual gameplay in any substantial way? |
|
|
|
Post by harami2000 on Dec 28, 2009 1:05:48 GMT -6
If Gygax's statements were proof, there'd be no question. Alas, what he typed and what he did have often been demonstrated to be wildly different, as stated by people who played in his games. *nods* In addition to "how things were being played in early 1971" vs. ""how things were being played in the second half of 1972" with D&D on the horizon post-GenCon. And that's, sad to say, in addition to often faulty recollection if not actual deliberate misleading or revisionism (S3's introduction appears to be another example of the former). * It's clear enough what could be potentially be read into "And then I figured it would be a lot more fun to play man-to-man and make those weapons count. So I wrote up a set of man-to-man rules, then rules for jousting" (on www.gamebanshee.com/interviews/garygygax1.php ) given the timeframe involved. A pity, then, that the former were not Gary's rules in DB#7 - and possibly not the latter, either(?) - and that there doesn't appear to be anything in Gary's writings/comments (in 1970) indicating that he was independently focusing towards 1:1 scale - for those that I've read, anyhow. That Gary was inspired by those and reworked/rewrote such rules at a later date prior to Chainmail 1e's publication is correct but that is not what his original words appear to say and that inevitably fuzzes the question of whether Dave Arneson got in there first using a modification of the DB#7 rules (2d6 roll-under in a RPG context?) prior to Gary's reworking (as published in Chainmail). See his oft-quoted editorial in Dragon magazine where he states that anyone not using every rule in every book is not playing AD&D, while he himself didn't use many of the rules in the books and still considered himself to be playing AD&D. *g*. Very true. 02c/ymmv, David. |
|
|
|
Post by harami2000 on Dec 28, 2009 1:26:00 GMT -6
Now, looking at Dragon #1, there is a conversion presented for The Battle of Five Armies for Chain Mail. Admittedly, the conversion is by Larry Smith, and not Gygax, Perren, or some other luminary, but he seems perfectly happy mixing together 20:1 and 1:1 scale. A better example is EGG's "Fantasy Wargaming a'La Tolkien" (sic) in Panzerfaust #60 (1973) for the "Battle of the Five Armies". Not really "early enough" in my book but still pre-D&D publication, at least. e.g. Dain's Army 25 Dwarves of the Iron Hills 1 Dwarf Hero (Dain & retinue) ... Elvenking's Army 100 Elves .... 1 Elf Hero (Elvenking) Later in text; "Knowing that the number of dwarves to be 500, and that there were two waves of 1000 elves which attacked...". nm that Dwarf Heroes require a "top-up", but Elven ones can stand alone.  d. |
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Dec 28, 2009 5:49:06 GMT -6
A better example is EGG's "Fantasy Wargaming a'La Tolkien" (sic) in Panzerfaust #60 (1973) for the "Battle of the Five Armies". Not really "early enough" in my book but still pre-D&D publication, at least. e.g. Dain's Army 25 Dwarves of the Iron Hills 1 Dwarf Hero (Dain & retinue) ... Elvenking's Army 100 Elves .... 1 Elf Hero (Elvenking) Later in text; "Knowing that the number of dwarves to be 500, and that there were two waves of 1000 elves which attacked...". nm that Dwarf Heroes require a "top-up", but Elven ones can stand alone. d. That is an interesting reference. I have been looking for a report on the Battle of the Brown Hills to see how that compared. Do you know if such an article ever saw print? The "one man army" stuff always puts me in mind of Conan as the last man standing on the battlefield in The Scarlet Citadel. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Dec 28, 2009 9:14:25 GMT -6
This is a fantastic thread, but it seems to generate an odd paradox based on two key assertions: 1. Gary never really used Chainmail combat for OD&D, and the "alternate" system is really the one that was used instead. 2. The Fantasy Supplement in Chainmail came first, and works best with a 1:1 scale. If the Fantasy Supplement was designed for 1:1, then by default it was the combat system pre-OD&D. Which would imply that the "alternate" combat system really was an add-on and not the true original combat system. Kind of makes my brain hurt. I wish I had access to the Panzerfaust article so that I could read it myself, along with all of the C&C Socity newsletters and other pre-OD&D doccuments. It does seem likely to me that Gary used Chainmail for various situations (1:1 when heroes are involved, perhaps 1:10 or 1:20 when they were not) becasue that's similar to the way my group and I used it back in the 1970's. Of course, we were never really bothered by problems in scale back then, and a hero was just "one guy" on the sand table and didn't matter to us how many troops constituted "one guy" that he was going to battle. Perhaps wer were just dumb back then.  |
|
|
|
Post by philotomy on Dec 28, 2009 14:08:14 GMT -6
Indeed, it seems more likely to me that either the heroes fight on the 1:20 scale (making them obscenely powerful) or they switch to 1:1 scale as circumstances require. Any thoughts on this and how it interacts with the Chain Mail rules as they appear? If using Chainmail to fight a fantasy battle as its own game, I'd probably just have the heroes and fantastic figures fight on the regular Chainmail scale (e.g. 1:20). That would include ultra-powerful (in D&D terms) stuff like "one man army" superheroes and wizards able to haste 20 figures at a time. However, if I'm using Chainmail to run a battle for my D&D game, I'd favor "attaching" the fantastic figures to a regular unit, but giving them the ability to "detach" and fight at 1:1 scale, as desired. In mass combat, they'd fight with their unit at 1:20, or whatever scale was chosen—I like the 1:10 scale suggested for D&D combats in Swords & Spells. (At a 1:10 scale, I'd also be tempted to let a lone superhero fight as a normal 1:10 figure, even though he's technically 8 men, not 10). If its unit was destroyed, the fantastic creature or hero would not be automatically killed, but would be "on its own." When units with fantastic creatures enter melee, the fantastic figures would tend to go after the each other, perhaps using 1:1 Chainmail combat, or perhaps running it as a D&D combat. |
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Dec 28, 2009 19:26:36 GMT -6
Agreed, Philotomy.
|
|
|
|
Post by delta on Dec 29, 2009 1:32:22 GMT -6
"Movement is in segments of approximately ten minutes. Thus it takes ten minutes to make two moves.... Two moves constitute a turn." OD&D turns are not 1 minute. OD&D rounds are 1 minute. You are correct about Chainmail Turns, however, which was my mistake. I didn't say that OD&D turns were 1 minute. I would think it obvious from context that I was referring to the increment at which OD&D combat takes place, the thing that is 1 minute, i.e., rounds. Swords & Spells is a 100% new and different system from Chainmail and has little if any bearing on interpreting the latter. Indeed, Swords & Spells came about because Gygax et. al. were utterly displeased with how Chainmail handled D&D mass combat. We'll disagree on that. To my reading S&S is nearly a copy-and-paste job from Chainmail in regards to its figures, turn sequence, movement, terrain, formation, facing, missile fire, melee, fortifications, etc. (with some expansions in each case). The things that are clearly different are scale, morale, and damage resolution. Aside from you claiming it makes a difference you haven't demonstrated how. How exactly does changing the scale from 1:20 to 1:10 mechanically affect a Hero being worth four men? How does it change actual gameplay in any substantial way? I'm talking about the change from 1:20 to 1:1, which I would think to be quite self-evident. If not, then that's the philosophical break that I mentioned earlier (or at least a longer presentation). To keep it as brief as possible, let's say that in broad strokes I definitely agree with Philotomy's play in relation to D&D above, which you also seem to agree with. Note that (1) this requires switching to 1:10 mass scale to be feasible (as in S&S), and more fundamentally (2) when a "superhero" breaks off alone, he is now worth only one normal figure, not eight. There's the key difference in a nutshell. |
|
|
|
Post by delta on Dec 29, 2009 1:39:57 GMT -6
Notably, captains in AD&D have to be 4th (or so) level or above and command 80-160 men. So if you have 800-1,600 men (40-160 figures) on the tabletop, then you have 1 figure of heroes as well. The first part I'll gladly agree with. But the conclusion doesn't follow: The captains won't be all collected in one spot (a "mass captain figure"); they'll be scattered throughout the troops in a way that doesn't statistically change the effect of the normal troop figures. |
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Dec 29, 2009 6:29:06 GMT -6
The first part I'll gladly agree with. But the conclusion doesn't follow: The captains won't be all collected in one spot (a "mass captain figure"); they'll be scattered throughout the troops in a way that doesn't statistically change the effect of the normal troop figures. At the abstract level where one figure represents X number of combatants, I do not think it really matters too much, since you simply count up the number of engaged troops and roll the appropriate number of dice, deducting casualties from the unit as a whole; the hero figure is the last to be slain by regular missile fire or melee. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Dec 29, 2009 7:07:15 GMT -6
In Warhammer Fantasy, leader units have to be surrounded by a group of followers. Perhaps that same logic could justify the hero being a single figure on the board. You could simply assume that a hero leader would be surrounded by 6 men-at-arms, while a super hero might only require two men-at-arms.
(I thought someone in this thread had a similar notion, but I can't find it at the moment in order to give credit.)
|
|
|
|
Post by delta on Dec 29, 2009 16:28:16 GMT -6
At the abstract level where one figure represents X number of combatants, I do not think it really matters too much, since you simply count up the number of engaged troops and roll the appropriate number of dice, deducting casualties from the unit as a whole; the hero figure is the last to be slain by regular missile fire or melee. We'll disagree on that. (1) If there are hundreds of troops many ranks deep, it doesn't make sense that all of the captains are in the front row making contact with high-level attacks on the enemy. (2) If a "special" figure like a dragon(s) drops into play, it doesn't make sense that they can target the mass-captain-figure and wipe out the entire leadership with one well-placed breath weapon. (3) I would not want to see the continuation of that logic that the presence of serjeants and lieutenants (DMG p. 31) needs to be played out with every 5th or 10th interspersed figure represented by an elite "mass serjeant figure", etc. Stuff like that. |
|
|
|
Post by harami2000 on Dec 29, 2009 23:54:07 GMT -6
That is an interesting reference. I have been looking for a report on the Battle of the Brown Hills to see how that compared. Do you know if such an article ever saw print? Unfortunately I don't have that Wargamer's Newsletter (and those who do aren't playing ball, since there was also no reply back in 2006) so it's difficult to know to what detail that "battle report" might go into, or even whether that would clarify what scale(s) EGG & co. were using for that particular setup. It clear enough, however, that the fantasy rules were not just intended for 1:1 play. |
|
|
|
Post by harami2000 on Dec 30, 2009 3:35:36 GMT -6
I wish I had access to the Panzerfaust article so that I could read it myself, along with all of the C&C Socity newsletters and other pre-OD&D doccuments. *g*. I know you have this expectation of free information, Fin', but (even aside from riding roughshod over copyright legislation) please remember that is extremely unfair on those who've had to do the legwork and/or dig themselves into deep financial holes in order to try to acquire various information sources. If you were really interested in "information for all", I'd suggest that a better approach might be to put your weight behind some sort of D&D/RPG museum/archive/whatever. Anyhow; in this particular case, is $11.40 too much to manage? www.trollandtoad.com/p238006.html It does seem likely to me that Gary used Chainmail for various situations (1:1 when heroes are involved, perhaps 1:10 or 1:20 when they were not) becasue that's similar to the way my group and I used it back in the 1970's. Of course, we were never really bothered by problems in scale back then, and a hero was just "one guy" on the sand table and didn't matter to us how many troops constituted "one guy" that he was going to battle. Perhaps wer were just dumb back then. Heh, heh... all I can say is that it was probably a lot easier starting in 1977 since all that muddling around with the woodgrain box rules is rather lost in my mind now thanks to the relative ease with which clarification from other sources was available within a relatively short time of acquiring those; hence no particular need to incorporate Chainmail "fully", nor getting dragged into those non-1:1 combat settings. d. |
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Dec 30, 2009 5:12:24 GMT -6
We'll disagree on that. (1) If there are hundreds of troops many ranks deep, it doesn't make sense that all of the captains are in the front row making contact with high-level attacks on the enemy. (2) If a "special" figure like a dragon(s) drops into play, it doesn't make sense that they can target the mass-captain-figure and wipe out the entire leadership with one well-placed breath weapon. (3) I would not want to see the continuation of that logic that the presence of serjeants and lieutenants (DMG p. 31) needs to be played out with every 5th or 10th interspersed figure represented by an elite "mass serjeant figure", etc. Stuff like that. If you are "scaling up" from 1:1 to 1:20 play, I think a dragon figure would have to represent 20 dragons. Now, that 20 dragons simultaneously target 20 heroes does stretch the imagination somewhat, as does the idea that 20 heroes might seek out 20 enemy heroes, but that really is a problem of grouping troops up into blocks of 20 in the first place, since you are applying the effects of 1 die roll as if it were rolled 20 times. If you are representing serjeants and lieutenants in 1:1 scale, then scaling them up for 1:10 or 1:20 play would also make sense, and I would not have a problem with it myself, except as far as to say that Chain Mail is not a good system for mass battles, but rather is best suited for 1:1 scale play. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Dec 30, 2009 7:23:03 GMT -6
I wish I had access to the Panzerfaust article so that I could read it myself, along with all of the C&C Socity newsletters and other pre-OD&D doccuments. *g*. I know you have this expectation of free information, Fin', but (even aside from riding roughshod over copyright legislation) please remember that is extremely unfair on those who've had to do the legwork and/or dig themselves into deep financial holes in order to try to acquire various information sources. If you were really interested in "information for all", I'd suggest that a better approach might be to put your weight behind some sort of D&D/RPG museum/archive/whatever. Anyhow; in this particular case, is $11.40 too much to manage? Actually, while I appreciate free information I wasn't trolling for a freebie in this case. (I'm not rich, but recently did pool together with a friend to spend $400 in order to get a copy of Warriors of Mars. I do understand the financial resources needed to collect original copies of this stuff.) Anyway, thanks for the link, and I'll go shopping right away. I'd love to have some sort of D&D archive, but can't really figure out how to make it work. The acaeum seems to do a good job of cataloging editions, etc, but I don't know if they have actual items or simply display images. And I can't imagine everyone sending me their precious items so I can display them. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by delta on Dec 30, 2009 13:42:53 GMT -6
If you are "scaling up" from 1:1 to 1:20 play, I think a dragon figure would have to represent 20 dragons. Now, that 20 dragons simultaneously target 20 heroes does stretch the imagination somewhat, as does the idea that 20 heroes might seek out 20 enemy heroes, but that really is a problem of grouping troops up into blocks of 20 in the first place, since you are applying the effects of 1 die roll as if it were rolled 20 times. If you are representing serjeants and lieutenants in 1:1 scale, then scaling them up for 1:10 or 1:20 play would also make sense, and I would not have a problem with it myself, except as far as to say that Chain Mail is not a good system for mass battles, but rather is best suited for 1:1 scale play. LOL, well, that I can generally agree with, particularly the conclusion. The only modifications I'd make are: (1) I assume that your acceptance of "mass serjeant figures" is hypothetical only, and that you haven't actually played that way yourself. I wouldn't want to. (2) If we more realistically assume that there is one hero/lieutenant-type leading each 1:20 figure, then we'll find that statistically it will be negligible to the results of the one die roll for that figure. Which is a significant distinction from how things play out at 1:1 scale. (That's one good example of how mathematically, scaling on discrete elements, e.g. individual men, must make qualitative changes in a model. ) |
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Dec 30, 2009 22:05:58 GMT -6
Wow, delta...you really have a problem with rules that use a lot of abstraction, don't you? I'm not saying that to be rude, it just seems that you're adamant about arguing anything that resembles heavy abstraction in the rules, when complete and heavy abstraction and hand-waving is exactly what is intended by both Chainmail and OD&D. Gygax, Arneson, and pretty much everyone who ever played in those two original games have said as much, and the rulebooks themselves are pretty explicit about that.
...and that, precisely, is why it does not matter if your figures represent 10 men, 20 men, or 50 men. Because it's all just an abstract number to enable you to quickly imagine ancient and fantastic battles, and as long as both sides use the same abstraction and the abstraction remains consistent, the rules are utterly unaffected.
|
|
|
|
Post by delta on Dec 30, 2009 23:42:14 GMT -6
Wow, delta...you really have a problem with rules that use a lot of abstraction, don't you? I'm not saying that to be rude, it just seems that you're adamant about arguing anything that resembles heavy abstraction in the rules, when complete and heavy abstraction and hand-waving is exactly what is intended by both Chainmail and OD&D. Gygax, Arneson, and pretty much everyone who ever played in those two original games have said as much, and the rulebooks themselves are pretty explicit about that. ...and that, precisely, is why it does not matter if your figures represent 10 men, 20 men, or 50 men. Because it's all just an abstract number to enable you to quickly imagine ancient and fantastic battles, and as long as both sides use the same abstraction and the abstraction remains consistent, the rules are utterly unaffected. We'll disagree on that. For example, Gygax's Introduction to Swords & Spells is almost entirely a discussion of how important scale is ("After considerable contemplation a 10:1 ratio was decided upon... the exceptional creatures had to be allowed for, and this could not practically be done on a scale greater than 10:1.", p. 1, 1st paragraph). I don't think either one of us is being rude, but my impression is that your desire to use Chainmail Fantasy at mass scale is clouding your reading of Gygax's actual quotes and the rules. I don't recall seeing Gygax or the rulebooks using the phrase "heavy abstraction and hand-waving" or anything much like that, particularly in regards to mass land combat. When I teach math, I actually feel that good abstraction is the single most important thing that I can give to my students. But in this case, the accurate abstraction is to say "4th-level heroes don't make a measurable difference and are therefore not represented in high-ratio mass combat", which is both simpler, and in harmony with Gygax's actual quotes regarding Chainmail Fantasy and other mass combat. |
|
