|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 29, 2014 23:24:46 GMT -6
In mass combat a rider & his mount is a single figure, it's either removed or it's not. You don't bother targeting the man and his horse separately.
But what's curious is that the MtM matrix includes columns for armoured and unarmed horse. Which implies one is able to attack mounts explicitly.
The question is... when?
Man to man allows for unhorsing in melee, which presumably could leave a separate mount in play. E.g., a goblin unhorsed leaves us with an unhorsed goblin and a giant wolf in play as two separate figures. Either could then be targeted separately.
But can a man on foot attack a mount while it still has a rider? What about missile fire versus mounted in Man-to-Man? Can an archer choose to target the mount or the rider?
And what about missile fire versus mounted heroes/anti-heroes in Man-to-Man?
Normals technically can't remove a hero/anti-hero until after all the normal targets are dealt with. Does this then include all the normal mounts too?
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 30, 2014 5:06:46 GMT -6
I view the MtM table as it corresponds to the mass combat troop types (roughly). So, LF= no armor to shield only, HF= leather & shield to chain & shield, AF= chain & shield to plate & shield, LH & MH= horse no armor, HH= barded. The LH, MH, HH (horse no armor & barded) categories include both horse and rider.
CM does not explicitly offer the option of targeting the mount instead of the rider. They are percieved as a whole when defending, unless a rider is being specifically unhorsed. The passage on page 26 indicates that footmen (only) must announce their intent to unhorse a rider before dice are thrown and that they recieve no penalty to the roll for being afoot. To me this suggests that the target number is no different except that they are not penalized on the roll.
Also, there is a footnote on the MtM table that says, "If man is dismounted and drone (prone) dice score of 7+ kills". This is found under the Plate/ Plate & Shield class, which further suggests this is a foot category.
Since this is a game of miniatures, usually a mounted figure that is killed would be removed from play, whether using MCT or MtM. But I can see your point with the mounted wolves. In that case, I would use Horse No Armor for a goblin mounted wolf. If the goblin is unhorsed or killed, the wolf itself would still be rated as Horse No Armor and attack as 2 daggers or 1 mace.
Others may view this differently though.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 30, 2014 5:44:57 GMT -6
I view the MtM table as it corresponds to the mass combat troop types (roughly). So, LF= no armor to shield only, HF= leather & shield to chain & shield, AF= chain & shield to plate & shield, LH & MH= horse no armor, HH= barded. The LH, MH, HH (horse no armor & barded) categories include both horse and rider. If I understand correctly, you're suggesting that all MtM attacks versus mounted men should be resolved against either the unarmoured or armoured horse columns, and that a hit/kill removes both rider and horse. I'm not sure this works out "correctly"--or at least, not as the mass battle rules would imply. If this was the case wouldn't there be three horse columns--one for LH, MH, and HH? Also, this approach makes armoured men on unarmoured horse very fragile. E.g., during the course of a MtM battle, a man in plate armour with shield (AF/AC2) mounts an unarmored medium horse and becomes easier to kill in MtM (he effectively drops from AC2 to AC7). This despite MH being harder to kill than AF in the mass battles rules. "If man is dismounted and drone dice score of 7+ kills". This is found under the Plate/ Plate & Shield class, which further suggests this is a foot category. Yes, if a mounted man is unhorsed and stunned due to the fall then he is PRONE, and other footmen will now kill him far more easily than if he were not prone. The whole of the MtM table (except the two horse columns) presumes foot vs foot. I would use Horse No Armor for a goblin mounted wolf. If the goblin is unhorsed or killed, the wolf itself would still be rated as Horse No Armor and attack as 2 daggers or 1 mace. And if the wolf-rider is killed by missiles? Do we have a giant wolf left in play or not? If not, the goblin player would be crazy to put his goblins on wolves--he would be FAR better off keeping them as separate units. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 30, 2014 7:19:51 GMT -6
If I understand correctly, you're suggesting that all MtM attacks versus mounted men should be resolved against either the unarmoured or armoured horse columns, and that a hit/kill removes both rider and horse. I'm not sure this works out "correctly"--or at least, not as the mass battle rules would imply. If this was the case wouldn't there be three horse columns--one for LH, MH, and HH? Also, this approach makes armoured men on unarmoured horse very fragile. E.g., during the course of a MtM battle, a man in plate armour with shield (AF/AC2) mounts an unarmored medium horse and becomes easier to kill in MtM (he effectively drops from AC2 to AC7). This despite MH being harder to kill than AF in the mass battles rules. I am not sure why Gary chose to add to the granularity of foot figures, but not of mounts. Suffice it to say that I view the MtM table as somewhat fluid in how you categorize a figure (especially with the Fantasy Supplement). It should be acknowledged too that the MtM table varies by weapon choice and does not function quite like the MCT. I believe the MtM horse categories also consider the size of the target. As for your example, I am not sure how much precedence there would be for such a thing, but in the case of a fully armored knight attempting to mount a wandering unarmored horse on the battle field I would categorize the figure as barded for the sake of missiles/melee. I would do much the same if using the MCT; an AF mounted would become HH. Consider that this has effects on movement as well. In fact, with your example above, I may suggest a further movement penalty for a horse untrained in carrying fully armored men (if this was the case) while allowing the figure to be categorized as barded. In this case, I would see that as acceptable to keep the wolves in play. Wolves would recieve a movement penalty when mounted though. So, there is still a benefit to not mounting them. In a traditional/historical game using the MtM rules, horses would generally not be considered intelligent creatures that would continue to fight. Once a rider is unhorsed or killed, the horse would lack direction and likely flee. Thus, removal of such a figure makes sense. One more point about the MtM table. If what your interpretation of the table is suggesting is that a figure can choose to target either the horse or the man mounted on the horse and that they each would have different target numbers, I think in most cases a person would target the horse based on the target numbers and expect the rider to likely be stunned (66.7% chance) when unhorsed by a kill. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 30, 2014 15:15:03 GMT -6
In this case, I would see that as acceptable to keep the wolves in play. Wolves would recieve a movement penalty when mounted though. So, there is still a benefit to not mounting them. MtM also states that a mounted warhorse only attacks on the second turn (not on the first), and that it can only attack foot figures. One might generalise and apply this to giant wolves also. So being mounted slows them, and also hinders their usual attacks. In a traditional/historical game using the MtM rules, horses would generally not be considered intelligent creatures that would continue to fight. Once a rider is unhorsed or killed, the horse would lack direction and likely flee. Thus, removal of such a figure makes sense. True, but in a fantasy context we could easily have intelligent horses (e.g., Narnia), or even just loyal mounts that will defend their rider if he falls. If what your interpretation of the table is suggesting is that a figure can choose to target either the horse or the man mounted on the horse and that they each would have different target numbers I was more asking about it--specifically for missile fire--rather than suggesting it. Thinking about it, yes I agree that it makes sense for a man to choose his target in melee, but for missiles I suspect the target should be randomly chosen. I'm not saying MtM suggests this; just speculating about how I think it could work. in most cases a person would target the horse based on the target numbers and expect the rider to likely be stunned (66.7% chance) when unhorsed by a kill. Yes. This would be the optimal strategy for a foot figure faced with a mounted figure, and historially accurate IMHO. Horses were more vulnerable to missile fire than men because they're bigger targets and their armour coverage was never as good. Mounted charging into a spear wall would clearly see many horses hit and their riders unhorsed in the impact. From the footman's perspective facing a mounted man, the horse would occupy much of his view--the rider being a much more difficult target. My only concern is that the "horse" columns on the MtM table seem far too generous to the attacker--considering horses are twice are hard as men in mass combat, and are 2-3 HD in D&D. That is, unless horses also required two hits to kill in MtM. That might make more sense... thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 30, 2014 16:11:23 GMT -6
This is a thought provoking subject Ways and I am simply telling you my opinion on how I interpret the MtM rules. I thought someone else on the boards would have also chimed in on this subject because I certainly don't feel that my views are the only valid ones and I'd like to hear some other opinions on this as well. It may well be that I am misusing the MtM rules when it comes to mounts. Truthfully, I tend to gravitate to the Mass Combat rules, but I do see the importance of unpacking the MtM system and how it carries over to OD&D.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 30, 2014 16:42:28 GMT -6
I got interested in this because, about a month ago, I ran a D&D combat with 20 warg-riders versus a dozen PCs on foot. I was using the ACS at the time, but immediately realised there were a few gaps in my knowledge of foot vs mounted combat. I made a few rulings on the fly and it all worked out okay. But I wanted to go back and investigate the "actual rules", which led me back to the MtM rules concerning foot vs mounted. It's certainly an interesting area  |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 30, 2014 18:45:00 GMT -6
Well, that puts your OP in a different light. Using the ACS, your questions seem like they might be an option. The one thing present in CM that most likely would not apply with D&D PC's is the Cavalry Charge Morale Check. This is where mounted figures can shine and quickly clean up a battle field, epecially if they outnumber the footmen. For MtM, you would use the Combat Table for 1:20 to see if such a check is necessary (page 26 under morale). Then again, if the footmen are archers, they could possibly decimate the calvary before a charge and cause an Excessive Casualty Morale Check. According to the rules on page 17-18, any unit that fails the check is removed from play.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 30, 2014 20:14:39 GMT -6
Well, that puts your OP in a different light. Using the ACS, your questions seem like they might be an option. I don't really see how use of the ACS or MtM mechanics makes much difference. These are just alternate methods for determining hits/misses and kills/damage. Yes, they produces somewhat different outcomes (although the average performance across all the MtM weapon-types is near-enough to the same as the first row of the ACS's attack matrices), but the combat framework around them is the same either way. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 31, 2014 15:39:42 GMT -6
Yes, if you are simply looking at the MtM table as a means of adjudicating combat. But your original question implied that you were asking about Chainmail as a whole using the MtM rules, not how the MtM rules parallel the ACS when roleplaying. I find CM, as a wargame, much more codefied and restrictive in allowing player agency. I gave two examples in my response above (charge morale & excess casualty) that would not have a place in a roleplaying game where the players decide if they are going to stand and fight or retreat. Yet I see those rules as a vital part of a Chainmail game and they are factors that go beyond the combat tables (AC & weapon class) in determining the effectiveness of a certain troop type selection. They are actually rules that can determine the victor in the entire battle. My opinion in responding to most of your original questions as played in Chainmail is "no". My opinion in responding to the same questions as played in D&D is "yes, possibly"  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2014 16:38:57 GMT -6
Well....
Gary did allow attacking the horse specifically with either melee or missile combat in Man to Man. This makes sense in historical context.
No, you did not have to kill all the mounts before killing the hero, because mounts are not fully sentient fighting units with skill and weapons.
Therefore, if the rider was killed, the horse was also removed because it's just an animal. Targeting the horse, as noted above, is most advantageous for heavily armored men on unbarded horses, which was often the case; barding was expensive and relatively rare. ("Trappers" are not the same as "barding," even "less than plate barding.") And no, horses did not take more than one kill.
And a wolf, even a Warg, would not attack as 2 maces like a horse; those are representing the hoof attacks. One sword or hand axe, perhaps. A horse is not a wolf, and vice versa.
And both are just animals.
If you want a wolf or a horse that is smart enough to fight independently, you have to pay for it. You don't buy "Light Horse" and get Narnia-style sentient horses for free.
CHAINMAIL was the basis from which D&D derived, but you can't go backwards from D&D to CHAINMAIL and expect it to make any d**n sense. CHAINMAIL started out as a historical miniatures wargame, and ALL else has to be viewed in light of this, or you'll get cr@p results.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 31, 2014 17:22:07 GMT -6
I gave two examples in my response above (charge morale & excess casualty) that would not have a place in a roleplaying game where the players decide if they are going to stand and fight or retreat. FWIW, I believe those rules are meaningful in D&D too--albeit in rarer circumstances. Yes, you'd probably simplify and apply OD&D's alternative method of rolling a morale check, but the gist of it is still applicable. The outcome would affect the PCs' retinue of hired help and retainers even if not the PCs themselves. Gary did allow attacking the horse specifically with either melee or missile combat in Man to Man. ... And no, horses did not take more than one kill. Good to know. re: hits to kill horses, presumably killing the horse would leave the (unhorsed) rider to deal with? If so, then you'd effectively have to get two kills (one for the horse, then one for the rider) in order to remove the "whole figure". Which would line up, kinda-sorta, with the greater toughness of mounted in mass combat. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2014 18:14:25 GMT -6
Good to know. re: hits to kill horses, presumably killing the horse would leave the (unhorsed) rider to deal with? If so, then you'd effectively have to get two kills (one for the horse, then one for the rider) in order to remove the "whole figure". Which would line up, kinda-sorta, with the greater toughness of mounted in mass combat. Well, yes. Again, note the kill numbers for daggers when defender is prone and dismounted, to allow for killing the horse and then swarming the heavily armored defender before he can stand up. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 31, 2014 19:23:22 GMT -6
I gave two examples in my response above (charge morale & excess casualty) that would not have a place in a roleplaying game where the players decide if they are going to stand and fight or retreat. FWIW, I believe those rules are meaningful in D&D too--albeit in rarer circumstances. Yes, you'd probably simplify and apply OD&D's alternative method of rolling a morale check, but the gist of it is still applicable. The outcome would affect the PCs' retinue of hired help and retainers even if not the PCs themselves. C'mon Ways, you know the real point I was making. It's not really the same. Regardless, Mike answered your initial questions in the affirmative. Which means I was mistaken on that. It was a worth while discussion since I learned something new |
|
