|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 15, 2014 7:45:38 GMT -6
Chainmail's Man-to-Man rules say this:
This appears to make some of the lighter weapons (including swords, which are class 4) especially deadly. Can any of the experienced MtM players comment on whether this rule really was played as number of blows "per round"?
This seems like it could get out of hand in conjunction with the mass combat rules which require an indeterminate number of rounds of combat per turn.
Do the MtM rules imply that a normal figure with, say, a hand-axe (class 1) would strike three blows per round versus a figure with a pike (class 12), and might fight 1, 2, or 3 rounds of combat in one turn?
Total number of blows struck by the hand axe figure would be 3, 6, or 9 in that one turn?
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jun 15, 2014 12:52:38 GMT -6
They're not especially deadly insofarMultiple attacks aren't the "ability to do more damage" they are the "ability to land the killing blow".
CHAINMAIL had not yet invented the concept if the attack matrix yet i.e the ability to subsume lethality in a a single attack, CHAINMAILS only means of increasing lethality, wether it's a troll or a dagger in close quarters, was with additive chances to land a telling blow.
In lieu of more attack you could replace it with "first strike on the second round and +3 to hit" which would accomplish the same design goal.
Since it's "one hit kill" the bonus attack or iterative attacks on the second round of combat is a hazardess trade off from first strike on the opening round! Although probably a moot point is that in subsequent rounds after the first, a wise tactician would drop the spear and draw a shorter weapon.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 15, 2014 17:21:34 GMT -6
Thank cooper, while your post doesn't really answer my central question, you raise some interesting discussion points... IMHO additional blows per round in MtM are more deadly because 1) increased probability of landing the killing blow, 2) introduce the possibility of killing more than one man per round and thus per turn, 3) introduce the possibility of scoring multiple "hits" against opponents that take multiple hits-to-kill (potentially including horses, heroes, other PC types, and any man-like/horse-like monsters from the fantasy supplement if you want to use these). I agree that Chainmail's main mechanism of increasing deadliness is allowing for additional attacks. But MtM also has an attack matrix (weapon-type vs armour-type) in which some attacks are clearly more deadly than others. This effect is seen (from memory) with light horses attacking as mace and heavy horses attacking as flail. in subsequent rounds after the first, a wise tactician would drop the spear and draw a shorter weapon. I'm not sure this would genuinely be allowable. Surely the whole turn must be fought with exactly one weapon; the player would be allowed to "change weapons" between turns, but not within turns. Otherwise the player would only ever see the "upside" of his weapon selection, and never see the "downside" because he would change to a different weapon before any downside came into effect. I.e. If I have two-handed sword and dagger, and I am faced with an opponent with a hand-ax, then; in the first round of the first turn, I use my two-handed sword to get the first blow. Then, after his first retaliatory blow, the hand-ax armed fellow would be allowed two more blows in the first round (due to his lighter weapon) while I would not be (due to my heavier weapon). But, if I am then allowed (between his first and second blows of the first round) to change to my dagger, I would suddenly negate the hand-ax fellow's two additional blows in the first round. The above example seems to "break" the rules. Or at least cause the awkward situation where you constantly needs to re-evaluate how many attacks are allowed. And what's then to prevent players from endlessly swapping weapons, tit-for-tat, during one turn? I think the rules "work out" if we presume players can only change weapons (and otherwise issue instructions) at the turn level. By that logic, I'd have to presume that--if figures engage in combat in any turn--they are "locked in" with their current weapon selection for the whole duration of that turn, regardless of how many rounds of combat are fought, and regardless of how many blows are struck per round. I'm happy to be educated otherwise
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jun 15, 2014 18:48:05 GMT -6
You cannot kill more than one man per round. The reason a man with an axe gets 3 attacks is because his enemy is wielding a longer weapon. Unless one is willing to entertain the idea of a paradox of a man being attacked by two men--with a pole arm and dagger respectively and then being able to take those 3 attacks against a man armed with the latter?
Even if both attackers have pole arms, the reason the man with the hand axe gets three attacks on the second round is because he is able to "get inside" the other mans weapon reach; you cannot close a distance against two separate men! When you get "inside" the reach of one, the other will pull back and hit you at his best distance.
All extra attacks must be against a single foe. This is why the iterative attacks are analogous to a "+ to hit". The man with a hand axe does not suddenly become a whirling dervish just because the a guy standing near him had a longer weapon.
No it is explicitly allowed "Vikings and Saxons" pg. 10 who throw their hand axes. The game is a historical reinactment; the only restrictions on pulling other weapons out would be that the troops must be listed as having such weapons "armed with spears and daggers" for example.
Since a good possibility exists of a moving battle line, if a troop is pushed back at all, then they would of course loose access to the dropped weapons for succeeding round or turns.
Lastly, in man to man it is impossible for a bowman to not draw a secondary weapon "for a whole turn" because a turn does not end until the troops are no longer in 3" of each other. Now, one could argue that to change weapons you must withdraw 3" and make sure your attacker cannot press his attack, but it looses verisimilitude.
Of course I am not suggesting a troop can draw multiple weapons in the same round. He may use his two handed sword in the first round and gain first strike and suffer through 2 attacks in retaliation, in the next round he may drop his sword and draw a smaller weapon. CHAINMAIL is not like 3e/4e or magic the gathering that has arbitrary and gamist restrictions like "only one major action per round and two minor actions". CM is trying to mimic reality and the reality is, after an initial exchange of blows, a man can be assumed to be able to drop and draw a more favorable weapon.
In mass combat of course this is all assumed, when a rank of LF bowmen enter melee with a body of HF knights, it is assumed that the bowmen are not hitting people with their bows, but have pulled out some sort of melee weapon.
And finally, this is exactly how the rule developed in D&D. You may draw a different weapon on the 2nd round of combat if one wants to of course!
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 15, 2014 20:14:21 GMT -6
I'm not suggesting I "know" how it's meant to work; I'm merely trying to tease out the logic of the written rules. As such allow me to argue (as in constructively debate) these points a little further... You cannot kill more than one man per round. The reason a man with an axe gets 3 attacks is because his enemy is wielding a longer weapon. Unless one is willing to entertain the idea of a paradox of a man being attacked by two men--with a pole arm and dagger respectively and then being able to take those 3 attacks against a man armed with the latter? Does CM really say a figure cannot kill more than one man per turn? I would have thought it entirely possible for, say, a hero or a knight on horseback to kill several men in a turn. the reason the man with the hand axe gets three attacks on the second round is because he is able to "get inside" the other mans weapon reach; you cannot close a distance against two separate men! When you get "inside" the reach of one, the other will pull back and hit you at his best distance. On the other hand, it's not impossible to imagine that a hero (or other single figure) could engage a line of spearmen or pikemen and get inside the optimal reach of several figures simultaneously. Also, the matter of weapon "reach" is dealt with in determination of who should strike the first blow. IMHO the number of blows per round are due, at least partly, to the relative speed of weapon--which is not always the same thing as the reach of the weapon. E.g., the flail has a higher factor because it is relatively slow, not because it is relatively long. All extra attacks must be against a single foe. This would be the most practical approach at the round by round level, I agree. The implication is then that some potential blows can be "wasted" (if the foe is slain on the first blow, then any subsequent blows need not be resolved). Is there any scenario where a man could slay his opponent in the first round, and then be required to fight another opponent in a subsequent round of the same combat turn? E.g., when a single figure is engaged against a line of multiple opponents, or is surrounded by multiple opponents? No it is explicitly allowed "Vikings and Saxons" pg. 10 who throw their hand axes. The game is a historical reinactment; the only restrictions on pulling other weapons out would be that the troops must be listed as having such weapons "armed with spears and daggers" for example. ... Lastly, in man to man it is impossible for a bowman to not draw a secondary weapon "for a whole turn" because a turn does not end until the troops are no longer in 3" of each other. Now, one could argue that to change weapons you must withdraw 3" and make sure your attacker cannot press his attack, but it looses verisimilitude. I don't have Vikings and Saxons, but I don't really understand this anyway. Missile fire is handled outside of melee, so I'm not sure why these missile fire examples are relevant to the number of blows per round or changing weapons in melee combat? Of course I am not suggesting a troop can draw multiple weapons in the same round. He may use his two handed sword in the first round and gain first strike and suffer through 2 attacks in retaliation, in the next round he may drop his sword and draw a smaller weapon. So you're advocating player weapon selection at the round level, rather than at the turn level--but not between blows during a round. That seems okay to me. Given the one minute turn, and the very probable likelihood that a result is forthcoming in relatively few rounds, then I guess it makes sense that a figure could realistically "change weapons" during a turn (at the round level). It is certainly believable that a figure could "change down" to a smaller side-arm or dagger during a melee. It is, perhaps, less believable that a figure could "change up" to a larger weapon during a melee--but you probably wouldn't want to anyway. That's all good discussion, thanks cooper, but I still have my initial question: Does a single figure with a hand-ax strike three blows per round versus a foe with a heavy weapon, even when multiple rounds are fought in the one turn of combat? And if this single figure is a hero with four such attacks... would he then have 12 such blows (if you multiple them, or else 7 if you add them) per round versus a foe with a heavy weapon, even when multiple rounds are fought in the one turn of combat? OR Is it assumed there is only a single round of combat each turn at the man-to-man level?
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jun 15, 2014 23:00:51 GMT -6
"viking and saxons" description on page 10 of CHAINMAIL.
1) Yes a single figure strikes 3 blows per round. there are potentially an infinity of rounds within the turn, it was not capped at 10 rounds to the turn until Men and Magic.
2) yes, a hero would have 12 attacks, this is meant to represent the fact that a hero still has the equivalent of a 20 thac0, in other words the only way to represent his increased puissance in CM is with more attacks. This was fixed with the alternate attack matrix, substituting 4 attacks for a 17 Thac0.
3) Yes a hero presumably can attack 4 different men in a round, but left over attacks (in the case of the hero wielding a hand axe vs. halberdiers) do not carry over. Which is to say that if a hero kills the first man on the first blow of the round, he cannot carry the phantom "two extra attacks" onto the other man.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 16, 2014 0:54:17 GMT -6
Thanks cooper, that's clear enough. (I don't want to debate the suggested D&D rationales in this thread). Do any other Man-to-Man players hereabout agree or disagree? One further question: Why would a hero (with hand-ax versus a heavy weapon) have 12 blows per round? Normal men get 1 blow per round, and 2 additional blows per round with hand-ax versus heavy weapons, for a total of 3 blows per round. Heroes get 4 blows per round, and could also get 2 additional blows per round with hand-ax versus heavy weapons, for a total of 6 blows per round.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jun 16, 2014 4:55:06 GMT -6
I'm not sure that "round" and "turn" have always had the specific meaning that has been attributed to them later. When I read Chainmail I tend to interchange the two, which may be my error.
I've also never noticed (or used) the rule that you mentioned in the original post. Giving additional attacks due to weapon class is logical but seems to unbalance the game a lot, as your most recent "hero getting 12 attacks" example illustrates.
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Jun 16, 2014 5:00:46 GMT -6
Since it's "one hit kill" the bonus attack or iterative attacks on the second round of combat is a hazardess trade off from first strike on the opening round! Although probably a moot point is that in subsequent rounds after the first, a wise tactician would drop the spear and draw a shorter weapon. Two handed weapons are meant for shock troops. As the first blow is stuck by the attacker unless the defender has a weapon two classes higher, an attacker armed with a two-handed sword will virtually always strike first. This matters because "The man striking the first blow receives a return blow only if he fails to kill his opponent." Since two-handed weapons have far higher chances to cause a hit on the man-to-man table (50%+ even against heavy armor), and a hit is a kill, a unit armed with two-handed swords can decimate the even armored foot in the first attack of the first round of combat. If only a third of the enemy unit remains to return attacks, than at most 1/3 of your two-handed weapon men can be attacked, and they are attacked at a lower chance to hit (because of the man-to-man chart) which makes up for the extra attacks they will return. Even if the enemy survives the melee and is able to kill of some of the two-handed men, they defenders will virtually always have sustained enough casualties to force a morale check.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 16, 2014 5:32:16 GMT -6
I'm not sure that "round" and "turn" have always had the specific meaning that has been attributed to them later. When I read Chainmail I tend to interchange the two, which may be my error. The way I read it, a "turn" is a period in which a player carries out his instructions--exactly as per playing Monopoly or any other board game "it's your turn now". In Chainmail, each turn represents one minute of elapsed time on the battlefield. If, during any turn, enemy figures come within 3" of one another they will engage in melee combat. A turn of melee combat comprises an indeterminate number of "rounds" of blows (as many rounds as it takes to get a result). A "round" of blows allows each player to throw attacks for any of his figures involved in the fighting, even during the other player's turn. There can be multiple "rounds" of blows in a single "turn". And--it seems--there can also be multiple blows struck by a single figure in each "round".
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 16, 2014 5:46:53 GMT -6
Two handed weapons are meant for shock troops. Yes, the first blow can be decisive, and yes, two-handed swords are far and away the best weapon on the Man-to-Man combat matrix (having a mean of 73% chance of a kill from one blow across all armour types). But remember also that two-handed swords will generally require a lot more room than will, say, spears. Depending on how much space your miniatures take up you might see two or even three times as many spearmen packed into the same fighting space as one two-handed swordsman. Swords & Spells makes this explicit (S&S p2) where it notes that spearmen are mounted on 5/8th" bases, while two-handed swordsmen are mounted on 11/8th" bases, so spearmen would outnumber two-handed swordsmen by slightly more than two to one. In other words, four two-handed swordsmen would meet nine spearmen in the same fighting space. The four zweihänders could expect to cause three kills (73%) in the first round of blows, leaving six spearmen to return blows in the first round. As it happens, spears are far and away the worst weapon on the Man-to-Man combat matrix (unless you allow a second rank to attack), having a mean 23% chance of a kill in one blow across all armour types. Thus, our six spearmen could expect to kill one or two of the four zweihänders in the first round of blows. If no outcome was reached, combat would continue into a second round.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jun 16, 2014 6:50:20 GMT -6
My understanding is that it works as it seems on the face of it, which is to say a man with a hand axe versus a man with a pike gets three attacks after the pike attacks once. I also agree with Cooper that a man should be able to change weapons in subsequent rounds without significant penalty, as that is what men did in reality.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jun 16, 2014 8:47:31 GMT -6
A hero doesn't get 4 blows per round, the hero fights as 4 men. If one agrees that a hero can engage multiple foes per round then the "two additional blows per round with hand ax" is paradoxical if one "man" of the hero attacks a normal man with a 2 handed sword and another "man" of the hero attacks a normal man with a dagger. As to 12 attacks being overpowering? A hero is going to kill a normal man. The normal man would be subject to 12 attacks against 4 men, so the fact that these four men are subsumed into the name "hero" shouldn't matter. A hero or 4 men, the results should be identical.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jun 29, 2014 22:50:14 GMT -6
Cooper wrote:
Does not the alternate combat system also grant 4 attacks/lvl (for the hero) against normal men in OD&D or is that redundancy only present in AD&D?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2014 22:57:04 GMT -6
Does not the alternate combat system also grant 4 attacks/lvl (for the hero) against normal men in OD&D or is that redundancy only present in AD&D? The rules are ambiguous as to whether the default (in all but name) combat system used the "1 HtH attack per HD" rule but many folks BitD used it anyway.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 30, 2014 3:57:46 GMT -6
Does not the alternate combat system also grant 4 attacks/lvl (for the hero) against normal men in OD&D or is that redundancy only present in AD&D? Not exactly "4 attacks/level (for a hero)", but yes: in OD&D any figure engaged in normal combat (i.e., against "normal" as opposed to "fantastic" opponents) has one attack as a normal man for each of its hit die.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jun 30, 2014 10:31:43 GMT -6
Thanks Dubeers and Ways for the help.
Sorry Ways, half asleep when I posted, yes, 1 attack/HD (4 att/Hero) vs. normal men. Just to be clear, when using the ACS, in melee against normal men, a hero attacks as a normal man (1-3 lvl column) for 'to hit' purposes, and has four attacks. Should the hero be faced with a fantastic creature he dices in the 4-6th lvl column and receives 1 attack.
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Jun 30, 2014 15:47:06 GMT -6
Does not the alternate combat system also grant 4 attacks/lvl (for the hero) against normal men in OD&D or is that redundancy only present in AD&D? The rules are ambiguous as to whether the default (in all but name) combat system used the "1 HtH attack per HD" rule but many folks BitD used it anyway. "Note: This excludes melee combat with monsters (q.v.) of less than one hit die (d8) and non-exceptional (0 level) humans and semi-humans, i.e. a11 creatures with less than one eight-sided hit die. All of these creatures entitle a fighter to attack once for each of his or her experience levels (See COMBAT)." I'll agree that this is not well explained, but ad&d fighters get one attack per level at the THAC0 for that level.
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jun 30, 2014 16:05:45 GMT -6
Essentially the hero in Chainmail receives an arbitrary boost in OD&D if AD&D was the intended outcome of the previous ruling.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 30, 2014 16:57:09 GMT -6
Just to be clear, when using the ACS, in melee against normal men, a hero attacks as a normal man (1-3 lvl column) for 'to hit' purposes, and has four attacks. Should the hero be faced with a fantastic creature he dices in the 4-6th lvl column and receives 1 attack. That is what is implied in M&T on p5. When the FAQ article came along it "adjusted" (or "clarified", if you prefer) the rule for player fighting men, allowing the hero to attack four times in the 4-6th level column. This is also what Red Baron has posted from AD&D. Personally, I prefer to ignore this addition because: . In Chainmail there was no attack matrix I; all attacks (in normal combat) were "as normal men". A hero had four attacks as a normal man because that's all there was. . In D&D a hero can appear as both a player and as a monster. It's annoying to have two different rules for the same figure acting on different sides. Also, it doesn't quite "work out" because a fighter's level is not the same as his number of HD at higher levels. E.g., a 13th level fighter with 11+3 HD would have 13 attacks as a 13-15th level fighter (if he were a player) or 11 attacks as normal man (if he were a monster). Two very different capabilities in the one figure! Edit: Or, if fighters-as-monsters use the PC rules, then a 4 HD hero is inexplicably better than a 4 HD ogre, and an 8 HD superhero is dramatically better than an 8 HD vampire or invisible stalker. . D&D (like Chainmail) has dichotomous combat; there's "normal" combat versus normals, and there's "fantastic" combat versus everything else. The two modes of combat are distinctly separate. In any turn you can either fight in normal combat or in fantastic combat, but never both at once. So it doesn't make sense to then combine the normal combat advancement mechanism (multiple attacks) with the fantastic combat advancement mechanism (improving attack matrix). All things considered, the multiple attacks as a normal man rule is already quite powerful--statistically, it is significantly more powerful than the "equivalent" advancement on Attack Matrix I. Making multiple attacks as a hero, or as a superhero, or as as 15th level Lord is "double dipping": it's effectively combining Chainmail's advancement mechanic for normal combat with D&D's advancement mechanic for fantastic combat. It's "off the charts" too powerful for me. But each to his own
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jun 30, 2014 17:08:12 GMT -6
Thanks Simon, odd that the FAQ took this approach, agreed it makes little sense to adopt.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 30, 2014 21:55:06 GMT -6
odd that the FAQ took this approach It's possible the author was already beginning to think in terms of where D&D was heading to, rather than where it had come from.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jul 1, 2014 5:54:07 GMT -6
I think he was demonstrating how to make something up.
|
|