Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jan 11, 2014 9:29:39 GMT -6
The man-to-man tables were famously taken from a fanzine or something, if my half remembered lore on the subject still serves me.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 11, 2014 11:43:58 GMT -6
Here's a blast from the past post on Delta's D&D Hotspot that talks about scale with the Fantasy Supplement. deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2009/12/gygax-on-chainmails-fantasy-scale.htmlTo me, based on Gary's comments, it suggests that the Fantasy Supplement when used with the Mass Combat tables must be played at 1:1 or you must jump between the combat systems when running a game at 1:20. As has been pointed out in this thread and in your comment in the above link, Gary seems to break his own rule when playing "Battle for the Moathouse". It makes no sense that the Fantasy Supplement includes troop type equivalents for figures found on the FCT if you are not intended to use them with the Mass Combat Tables, unless the Mass Combat Tables were really intended for 1:1 scale. In which case, why have the Man-to-Man Combat Tables? *I've dug up a gold mine of old Chainmail posts on Delta's blog. Off to read further.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 11, 2014 15:28:21 GMT -6
A lot of the problems in this thread revolve around scale, which is to say whether 1:10, 1:20 or 1:1 is used or even mixed together. What I would say about that is "forget it". Well Matthew, your advice is starting to gel. There is no concrete position (and evidence to support that position) when it comes to the application of scale with the Fantasy Supplement that I can find. Most likely, it was not really intended to be played at 1:20 scale and the illusion that it was, carried over to OD&D because no one wanted to admit that this was a flawed concept (read: screw up). So, it seems people should play the rules as they like in regards to scale and not be detracted from doing so if others claim it is the wrong way. I'm going to let this dead dog lie now (unless some one pokes it with a stick ). btw-I'd love to read any content about the Man-to-Man rules coming from a fanzine. If you come across that material at some point, please post a link. edit: This post that contains Gygax's SS article from Dragon June78 actually does admit to the flaw in scale (not so much in Chainmail, but how it carried through into D&D). Still interesting. deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2012/11/gygax-on-scale.html
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 12, 2014 10:39:59 GMT -6
I realize that much of the discussion here is probably a rehash of things others have already discovered. My own personal frustration with Chainmail has to do with running large mass combats at a scale greater then 1:1 with the Fantasy Supplement. It does not satisfy me that the suggested "supposed intent" of the rules is to either switch between the combat systems (using Heroes as commanders) and parse out 1:1 figures from 1:20 figures or run it all at 1:1. I find the conflicting accounts, memories and how the rules were written to not add up. One thing I'm not sure has ever been said and that might help some avoid the same frustration is that scale (troop ratio) is directly related to Hit Dice (all normal troops are essentially 1 HD). I know the concept of HD is in it's infancy here, so some may disagree with this statement. Suffice it to say, that if you want to run a mass combat at a larger scale that minimizes conflicts created by mixing scale, you must match it to the power of the heroic figures. When you mix scales, you are abstracting combat abilities. So, you end up with a Hero (1:1 fig) that has the fighting ability of 40-80 men (four 1:20 figs). On the Man-to-Man table, the Hero has FA of 4 men. It seems 1:4 is acceptable to most people. As would be 1:8 for a Superhero. If you would run mass combat at 1:10 (the scale mentioned in Domesday Book #5), a Superhero being able to defeat 10 men is not a stretch (*he would not be worth 8 figures, he would be worth 1 figure at 1:10 scale) and it may not bother most that a Hero could defeat 10 men in a round at this scale either. Now this idea may create problems with other figures mentioned in the Fantasy Supplement and I have not looked at it that closely, but this is where may train of thought is headed (train wreck ). Reading many of Delta's posts above, I may have to investigate his Book of War. He may have already crossed this bridge. Anyone own or played his Book of War?
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 12, 2014 13:30:10 GMT -6
Some initial notes for running Mass Combat with consideration to HD at 1:10
"Normal" 1HD figures (1 hit= kill)/ 1 figure= 10 men *these figures count as 1 figure on combat table
-includes Hobbits, Dwarves, Gnomes, Goblins, Orcs, Elves, etc. *Elves with magic sword get +1 die for attacks (1 figure= 1 man)
"Fantastic" figures (take cumulative or simultaneous hits to kill)/ 1 figure= 1 man with FA of 10 men *these figures only count as 1 figure on the combat table *Heroes, Supers, and Wizards will always be AF unless mounted. *magic swords grant +1 die for attacks
Hero= 4HD Super= 8HD Wizard= 7HD Lycanthrope= 4HD Ogres= 6HD Giants= 12HD Rocs= 4HD Giant Wolves= 1HD Wights= 1HD
*Specials (immune to "normal" attacks): Trolls= 6HD Ents= 6HD Wraiths= 2HD
Special "Fantastic" figures (take cumulative hits to kill and immune to "normal" attacks)/ 1 figure= 1 man with FA of multiple figures *these figures count as multiple figures on the combat table
Balrog= 2 figures/ 10HD Dragon= 4 figures/ 20HD Elementals= 4 figures/ 20HD *HD are scaled back with these figures
*Combat between “Fantastic” types may be resolved on the FCT.
When I compared all these numbers to Vol 2 M&T reference table, I found they actually match pretty closely.
It is not evident, but scale could be increased to 1:20 by increasing “normal” figures to 2HD (thus requiring 2 hits to kill by “fantastic“ types) or by reducing the HD of all “fantastic” figures by half (when greater then 1HD). Heroes would be reduced to 2HD, Wizards to 3HD, and Supers to 4HD. Either approach would achieve the same results in relation to scale. The first approach would have an additional effect of prolonging combat though.
One thing that should be said, this approach does not allow for enough granularity to simply port over PC’s to Chainmail as is. PC’s of HD lower then Hero status will not scale well. They should only be considered 1HD men, do not benefit from simultaneous hits, and would be vulnerable as a result. Really, I might consider not using simultaneous hits for any figures.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 13, 2014 6:07:05 GMT -6
scale (troop ratio) is directly related to Hit Dice (all normal troops are essentially 1 HD). I must disagree (of course!) If we take a look at CM's mass combat tables we note that figures can roll fewer than one die, one die, or more than one die, depending on who they're up against. If we figure the averages, we see that: * Mounted roll, on average, one die per figure versus mounted and two dice per figure versus foot (0.93 and 2.22). * Foot roll, on average, half a die per figure versus mounted and one die per figure versus foot (0.49 and 0.82). This effectively means that: Twice as many foot must hit, compared to mounted, to kill one mounted. Half as many mounted must hit, compared to foot, to kill one foot. The same effect could have been achieved with: Foot: roll one attack and take one hit to kill. Mounted: roll two attacks and take two hits to kill. The genius of Chainmail's combat tables is that they eliminate any need to record hits against mounted. But the implication is the same; mounted are equivalent to 2 attack, 2 hit figures. Foot are equivalent to 1 attack, 1 hit figures. Each with their respective sub-categories, of course. All are normal. When you mix scales, you are abstracting combat abilities. So, you end up with a Hero (1:1 fig) that has the fighting ability of 40-80 men (four 1:20 figs). Mmm, maybe, but as you say this is unsatisfactory, and also U&WA (p25) says "single fantastic types fight separately at 1:1 or otherwise against but a single 1:20 figure.". So if we follow U&WA's advice then a hero or a superhero retains the fighting capability of just 4 or 8 men which, combined with his morale effects perhaps, is enough to render a single 1:20 figure ineffective for the remainder of the battle. He doesn't need to kill all 20 men; he only needs to renders them ineffective as a unit on the battle field.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jan 13, 2014 9:01:31 GMT -6
It is always interesting to read about the experiences of somebody else playing or "discovering" Chain Mail, and you are right that part of that journey will involve a lot of rehashing of previous discussions had here. Your problem with scale is definitely something that has been the focus of discussion before and never satisfactorily resolved (hence my advice to forget about it), but exploring it might reveal something new. Daniel "Delta" Collins had some interesting ideas on his blog, as I recall, but in the end his approach to scale and time proved lacklustre. Not sure about the final form of his war game rules, I lost interest after several unpleasant (and unrelated) run ins with him on Dragonsfoot, though I think he did post to a few threads here on the subject of CM as well.
|
|
|
Post by rsdean on Jan 13, 2014 10:00:51 GMT -6
So, just out of curiosity, is anyone interested in reading Swords and Spells back into this discussion? In a sense, it's what Chainmail was 'clarified' into after D&D took off...
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 13, 2014 18:42:47 GMT -6
I must disagree (of course!) lol, you're good people Simon. It's people like you that keep this forum enjoyable. Obviously, this is a work in progress. But, since you're tearing a hole in my base supposition, I'll try to make my point without sounding like a quack. These are valid points. Now, I think you may be anticipating that I'm going to say that all Mounts (Horse) on the MCT are essentially 2HD. In a way, yes they are and no they are not. This will be splitting hairs. What they are is the equivalent of two 1HD men, but the horse is superimposed into the Mass Combat Table matrix. Your analysis points this out, but it is made clearer with the MtM system, where the horse also gets an attack in the second round of combat. There is an informative analysis I found on Duck, Duck, Die! blog about the MCT in Chainmail. He finds there are four basic strengths of units in Chainmail which he grades A to D. There is overlap between foot and horse units. His objectives are different then mine and he abandoned the MCT in favor of the MtM system in later posts, but he notes that "Mounting a footman on a proper horse appears to improve its combat capability by one step." It's interesting to think Gary also used this framework to vary the strengths of Fantastic figures found in the Supplement versus simply adding a numerical equivalent before a troop type (Wraiths, Balrogs, Dragons, Rocs, Elementals, Wolves. Wights). Most of these creatures would not truly be considered mounts. I should also mention that what I am suggesting with HD does not really change how CM is played with the Fantasy Supplement in most cases. All normal figures will be treated the same on the Combat Table. Most fantastic figures already have to receive cumulative or simultaneous hits to kill. Those figures in the Supplement will still recieve the same troop type rating. They just will not be worth as much for attacks in order to compensate for scale. Since reading Gary's response on Enworld about scale in Chainmail, this is quickly becoming a reference that I look at disdainfully (maybe that sounds too harsh. How about the quote irks me because of its implications). To me this quote supports mixing scale in CM and is in conflict with Mr. Gygax's comments. It clearly presents the idea that a 1:1 Hero can fight a single 1:20 figure (that would be equal to 20 "normal" men) on the MCT. I agree with all your conclusions in regard to morale and rendering a unit ineffective. But, this is using OD&D to clarify/justify Chainmail by using the "single" 20:1 rule found there. I think the rule makes good sense, otherwise, and have said so before. Do you really think this supports the idea of a Hero having the FA of 4 men though? He will have the value of four 1:20 figures on the MCT. How do you view it when two 1:20 figures (20 men vs. 20 men) are facing off? The results and rationale are much the same in respect to morale and rendering a unit ineffective. Unless, you are suggesting that the quote in U&WA is really instructing us to parse out our 1:20 figure on the MtM table, thus the Hero would have 4 blows to a "normal" mans 1 blow? We must also consider the 1 minute turn
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 13, 2014 18:51:07 GMT -6
So, just out of curiosity, is anyone interested in reading Swords and Spells back into this discussion? In a sense, it's what Chainmail was 'clarified' into after D&D took off... It might make a good additional thread in the forums. I truthfully don't know a thing about Swords and Spells and I never see it discussed much. I don't know why the rules never gained traction like Chainmail?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 14, 2014 4:30:17 GMT -6
I think you may be anticipating that I'm going to say that all Mounts (Horse) on the MCT are essentially 2HD. In a way, yes they are and no they are not. This will be splitting hairs. What they are is the equivalent of two 1HD men, but the horse is superimposed into the Mass Combat Table matrix. Your analysis points this out, but it is made clearer with the MtM system, where the horse also gets an attack in the second round of combat. I don't think this is quite the same thing. I wasn't so much focused on the attacks side of it. My point was that on the MCT a mounted figure takes (on average) twice as much "killing" as does a foot figure. "D&D Hit Dice" weren't around then, but they appear to be reasonably neatly correlated with CM's concept of "number of hits required to kill". Men got 1 HD and horses got 2 HD. Which is not dissimilar to CM's MCT concept of mounted types being (on average) twice as tough as foot. Speculating further: If one or more 1:20 figures of cavemen, gnolls, or lizardmen (later given 2 HD in OD&D) were to enter mass combat it would not be unreasonable, IMHO, to represent them defending as various sorts of horse while attacking as various sorts of foot. This would give them the toughness of mounted (neatly accounting for their 2 HD) without unduly inflating their attack potential, or requiring us to record "hits" against them. This would be similar to CM's Wight/Ghoul. Not the same, but similar. And let us remember that Wight/Ghouls were divided into two separate types for OD&D, and these given 3 and 2 HD, respectively. OD&D's 2 HD ghoul became the poor cousin, so it wouldn't be unthinkable to downgrade the OD&D ghoul slightly from CM's original Wight/Ghoul, which defends as HH and attack as LH (which are scarcely better than AF as it is).
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jan 14, 2014 4:33:37 GMT -6
Well, S&S was developed to allow for D&D mass combat. As a mathematical exercise it is not too bad, but it is not very much fun as a game.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 14, 2014 18:15:38 GMT -6
I wasn't so much focused on the attacks side of it. My point was that on the MCT a mounted figure takes (on average) twice as much "killing" as does a foot figure. Well, I guess you can look at this in a couple of ways. The horse takes twice as much "killing" because it has an advantage over foot units (maneuvering, speed, height). It takes twice as much killing because it really represents 2 men (the horse and it's rider). It takes twice as much killing because it also, in equal measure, delivers twice as much killing. Or, what you seem to be suggesting, a war horse is a 2HD figure which defies the idea that all "normal" troops are 1HD figures. The problem with incorporating mounts as actually being worth 2HD is that I am not attempting to divorce myself from the MCT. So the horses defensive quality incorporated into the combat tables will still be in play. I am also not trying to redefine troop type qualities found in the Fantasy Supplement. These troop type equivalents that define the combat abilities of fantastic figures will remain the same. They simply will not have a numeric multiplier before them, in most cases, that gives them the fighting ability of multiple figures at 1:10 scale. For example, Lycanthropes will not have the fighting ability of 4AF and defend as 4HF. Instead they will simply attack as 1AF and defend as 1HF, but have 4HD. Mechanically, they still must receive 4 simultaneous hits to kill, but they will not have the FA of 40 men. They will have the FA of 10 men. Nor am I trying to validate HD in OD&D in relation to normal vs fantastic. We do not have levels in Chainmail either, except as it applies to wizards. I am using HD to represent this. A full Wizard will fall between the Hero and Superhero at 7HD, Sorcerer 6HD, Warlock 5HD, Magician 4HD, Seer 3HD (I am considering bumping these all down one though). They all will attack as 1AF. We also do not have varaible hit points in Chainmail. A Hit Die is equal to 1 Hit Point. No more, no less. You can vary any foot figures defensive and attack quality by giving it a mount, but this does not effect its HD. In the case of "normal" troops, it will still only take one hit to kill them. This is true no matter what scale you run the game at. For the Wizard, if mounted his quality will improve to MH, but he will still have 7HD. This idea of giving cavemen and lizardmen a defensive troop quality of horse is acceptable in itself. The problem arises when you would want to increase their quality by actually giving them a mount. This would marginalize the benefit of being mounted. Most humanoids will be 1HD foot figures in Chainmail unless mounted.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 14, 2014 19:02:56 GMT -6
This idea of giving cavemen and lizardmen a defensive troop quality of horse is acceptable in itself. The problem arises when you would want to increase their quality by actually giving them a mount. This would marginalize the benefit of being mounted. Most humanoids will be 1HD foot figures in Chainmail unless mounted. So how would you then handle mounted Ghouls in mass combat?
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 14, 2014 20:41:21 GMT -6
The short and unsatisfactory answer would be, I wouldn't. Wights/Ghouls are already overpowered for the MCT. My guess is that Gygax did not invision the possibility of them being mounted either, when he created their troop equivalence. If they were mounted, it could also bring into question how a person would rule for making contact (touch) and paralysis.
The Wight/Ghoul, itself, does present a problem on the MCT with my method though. Normally a Hero would be worth 4HF or 4AF and the Wight would be worth 1HH defensively. That means a Hero would recieve 1 die/ 6 kills with the MCT (or he would need a 6 on the FCT). With my approach he would not be able to engage the Wight on the MCT because AF vs HH is 1 die per 3 men/ 6 kills(he could still use the FCT). This kind of defeats part of the purpose of what I'm trying to achieve. Now, if a 1:1 Hero was facing a "normal" HH figure at 1:10, I could rationalize this result. But, it's clear there are bugs in my method.
|
|
Torreny
Level 4 Theurgist
Is this thing on?
Posts: 171
|
Post by Torreny on Feb 7, 2014 4:12:25 GMT -6
If they were mounted, it could also bring into question how a person would rule for making contact (touch) and paralysis. One could easily look to the source material behind the wight and wraith: the barrow wights and Nazgul of Lord of the Rings, with their black breath, or the deafening (and terrifying) screech of the witch king. More so the latter, as would also explain the simplicity of fixing the matter by bringing in a hero, wizard or elf into the scene. What's more paralyzing than terror? Well, muscle-paralyzing poisons, of course, but...
|
|
|
Post by derv on Feb 7, 2014 14:56:39 GMT -6
For me the question would be, what is to be gained by mounting Ghouls (Wights)? The answer seems to be that you would gain very little in the way of troop quality since they are already rated as Cavalry. You might gain in a higher movement rate. As a result, I think it would bring a rule and its application into question (paralysis by touch).
In CM, Wraiths can only "touch during the course of a move (not flying)." It also says "Touch means either actual contact or coming within 1" of." This seems to be referring to the actions of both the Wraith and the friendly Elf, Hero or Wizard who frees the unfortunate. It's important to recognize that the Wraith cannot paralyze troops when it's flying, only during a normal move.
Looking at the Wight it has less to say. "If they touch a normal figure during melee, it becomes paralyzed...."
The two key elements for the Wight are "touch" and "during melee". We can assume touch is interpreted similiar to how it is described for the Wraith, except it must be in melee.
A Wight has a move of 9" (Same as HF crossbow). A Wraith has a move of 18" (same as MH). So, possibly a Wight could gain the move rate of MH or HH on a proper mount.
The question would remain wether the Wight could paralyze by touch when mounted. To this I would say, it's really up to the players involved to agree upon, keeping in mind that the Wraith cannot paralyze when in flight.
It is interesting that both the Wraith and the Wight share the same point value and morale rating of 10. So, if the only real benefit of mounting Wights is in movement, you might as well buy Wraiths.
The Wraith has the ability to cause the enemy to check morale when they approach within charge distance as if they had taken excess casualties.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Aug 9, 2014 13:58:06 GMT -6
Conclusions on Mixed Scale in ChainmailI had started a separate thread that was a demonstration and documentation of testing alternatives for mixing scale. I was hoping they would prove a bridging of OD&D and Chainmail’s Fantasy Supplement using the mass combat system. I gave up the effort because it didn’t seem to be of interest to many. odd74.proboards.com/thread/9886/using-pcs-mass-combat After continued play testing I thought I would still offer my outlook on the matter. I devoted much time trying different avenues of mixing scale with the Fantasy Supplement and, as a result, have come to a few conclusions. There are two methods of using the mass combat rules with the Fantasy Supplement as written. Both are a compromise in relation to OD&D, in my opinion. But, if your goal is to run a classic game and have fun, either approach is acceptable. The first approach is to run mass combat as written with very little thought to balance. This is generally the way most reading Chainmail with the Fantasy Supplement for the first time will interpret the rules. This means you will have heroes with the fighting ability of 80 men (4 normal foot figures) and super heroes with the fighting ability of 160 men (8 normal foot figures) when running a game at 1:20. The second approach is ran no different then the previous approach albeit it offers a plausible justification for the power differences. This method suggests that figures representing heroes and such include an entourage. Therefore, a hero would be a figure that could actually represents the commander and his elite guard at 1:20. Neither of the above is anything new. I am simply expressing that I think they are acceptable approaches. My final conclusion is the result of actually trying to reconcile mixing scale in Chainmail. That is, trying to make it work without imbalance or rationalizing scale. What I have found through actual play is: 1. I found myself adding rules to fill gaps 2. The modifications slowed play 3. The morale rules break down 4. Missile fire rules break down and require modification 5. 1:1 figures such as heroes prove themselves to be best attached to units, instead of acting independently in mass combat. 6. 1:1 figures work best engaged with other 1:1 figures separate from 1:20 combat. *Number 5 & 6 suggest that there is therefore no point in modifying the rules. Ultimately what I have concluded (and you are free to disagree and play test yourself) is that Chainmail with the Fantasy Supplement was actually written for the Mass Combat system with straight 1:1 scale in mind. Not what I was looking for, but it is what turns out to make the most sense and is easiest to run. It also requires no real justifications or modifications to the rules. So, feel free to run Chainmail as you please. I would only say that you will still need to make a few choices if you plan on using it with OD&D, since there are a number of changes that occurred in the development. Will you use monsters from Chainmail or the LBB’s? Will you emphasize Fighting Capability or Hit Dice? How will you handle saving throws for magic? Ranges and areas of effect? The use and effect of magic items. As always YMMV.
|
|
|
Post by rsdean on Aug 11, 2014 8:12:22 GMT -6
Well, I suppose what I would do would depend on what I wanted to get out of the connection between the systems. Played in isolation, the representational scale of Chainmail is irrelevant. At that point I'm happy to consider a hero figure as representing a hero and his entourage...say Aragorn and his Ranger cousins at Minas Tirith as a single figure at the large scale. The author's intro to Swords and Spells says "The FANTASY SUPPLEMENT written for CHAINMAIL assumed a basic man-for-man situation." He then goes on to discuss why they chose 1:10 for S&S. Something that clear in Chainmail would have saved most of this discussion... So despite the billing as mass combat, it looks like Chainmail Fantasy Supplement was really envisioned as a retinue/warband sort of thing. This suggests that Chainmail is really about four different things with some overlapping mechanics: historical mass battles, small battles with detailed combat (mostly historical but with some notes on fantasy accommodation), retinue/warband fantasy rules, and jousting. That kind of concatenation of ideas is pretty typical for 1960s/70s miniature wargaming as viewed in the Featherstone and similar hardcover books, but not at all what RPGs evolved into.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Aug 11, 2014 9:09:47 GMT -6
Ultimately what I have concluded (and you are free to disagree and play test yourself) is that Chainmail with the Fantasy Supplement was actually written for the Mass Combat system with straight 1:1 scale in mind. Not what I was looking for, but it is what turns out to make the most sense and is easiest to run. It also requires no real justifications or modifications to the rules. Yes, indeed, that is also what I concluded in the end.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Aug 12, 2014 16:13:34 GMT -6
The author's intro to Swords and Spells says "The FANTASY SUPPLEMENT written for CHAINMAIL assumed a basic man-for-man situation." He then goes on to discuss why they chose 1:10 for S&S. Something that clear in Chainmail would have saved most of this discussion... It's hard to put a lot of stock in that quote, all on it's own, considering some of the statements and accounts that are also documented that seem to suggest otherwise. Some of these are referenced in this thread. The reality is that Chainmail and the Fantasy Supplement was a compilation that developed over time prior to the 3LBB's being published. My findings aren't simply that the Fantasy Supplement was intended for 1:1, but more specifically, that it was intended for the MCT at 1:1. The quote from S&S leaves one to believe that the Fantasy Supplement was part and parcel of the Man-to-Man system. I actually think the Man-to-Man system came along later. You also have to consider that S&S was published in 1976, after Gary certainly recieved many questions about how OD&D and Chainmail are suppose to work together. No, that quote is actually a red flag to me. I'm not sure if such a statement in Chainmail would have saved me from having this discussion, but I do think it may have saved Gary from having to answer so many questions over the years because of his inclusions of Chainmail in the 3LBB's. Yes, pretty much that is the case.
|
|
|
Post by rsdean on Aug 12, 2014 20:00:33 GMT -6
My findings aren't simply that the Fantasy Supplement was intended for 1:1, but more specifically, that it was intended for the MCT at 1:1. The quote from S&S leaves one to believe that the Fantasy Supplement was part and parcel of the Man-to-Man system. I actually think the Man-to-Man system came along later. /quote] I apologize for being inclear. Yes, I agree with you about your conclusion that 1:1 with the mass combat tables was intended. I think in reading the Gygax quote one should interpret the man-for-man as a 1:1 representational scale, not as a comment on the Chainmail man-to-man segment. The former conclusion was new to me; I'd always thought about Chainmail as 1:20...
|
|
|
Post by derv on Aug 12, 2014 20:45:17 GMT -6
No need to apologize rsdean. I appreciate the comments. One reason I found it necessary to play test Chainmail was because of the seemingly conflicting information about how the rules were used with the Fantasy Supplement. I'll mention one example that fits nicely with that quote from Swords & Spells and the fact that it was published in 1976. In that same year the first issue of The Dragon magazine came out. Within it's pages was a Chainmail scenario for The Battle of Five Armies. If you have access to that write up you'll find an order of battle of mixed scale (1:20 & 1:1). At that time, what would most people have concluded after seeing that? At the same time, Gary's saying the Fantasy Supplement was meant for 1:1
|
|