|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 14, 2015 5:41:39 GMT -6
I thought this discussion was about how to bring forward a concept from CHAINMAIL into D&D-land.
|
|
|
|
Post by rsdean on Mar 14, 2015 5:42:28 GMT -6
Perhaps this would be better in the Chainmail discussion topic, but I think we need a reminder of the way Chainmail and the Fantasy Supplement is intended to be played. I need to sit down with a tableful of figures and give it a try one of these days, and there was a message on my club's mailing list this morning that someone is suggesting just that, so I might have the chance.
Anyway, summary of my understanding, so PLEASE take pity on me and correct me if I'm wrong: There are three sections of the Chainmail rules (plus jousting).
The first section is a 1:20 scale medieval mass battle set of rules suitable for figthing a wide range of battles. The 1:20 scale suggests that an Agincourt refight would have Henry V's English army represented by 50 men-at-arms and 250 archers or so (1000/5000), which is still more of a collection that I had when I was 12 and bought Chainmail.
The second section is a man-to-man skirmish game for use in simulating some small affray like as assault on a castle gate or whetever, using dozens (perhaps) of figures. Despite the presence of the point values on p27 (in the m-t-m section), the weapons listing (e.g., bombard?) suggests that they are intended for the main game.
The third section is the fantasy supplement. This is generally intended to use the first section rules, although it has been brought to my attention in previous discussions that the scale is now 1:1 rather than 1:20. The presence of morale points (used with the mass section but not with the man-to-man section), the reference to the Combat Tables (not the Man-to-man Melee tables) in places like the discussion of Elves vs. Goblins on p29, seems to support that. The ratings of monsters as "X number of Y troop type" belong to the Combat Tables, so a Dragon (fighting as 4 heavy horse) rolls 8 dice looking for 4-6 to kill when meleeing with some unfortunate batch of light infantry. If fantastic types meet (and they are defined essentially by the Fantasy Combat table on p44) they forget about the Combat Tables and d6 rolls on p40 and roll 2d6 on the tables on p44.
My 3rd edition copy has a special table on p34 for trolls, that doesn't match the p44 Fantasy Combat table; I always figured that was an artifact of different eras of playtest notes being incorporated.
In Chainmail itself, there doesn't seem to be any support for using the man-to-man rules with fantasy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Mar 14, 2015 8:47:02 GMT -6
In Chainmail itself, there doesn't seem to be any support for using the man-to-man rules with fantasy. Fantastic figures attack using the mass combat (or man-to-man) system against normal troops. |
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Mar 14, 2015 9:25:22 GMT -6
The first section is a 1:20 scale medieval mass battle set of rules suitable for figthing a wide range of battles. The 1:20 scale suggests that an Agincourt refight would have Henry V's English army represented by 50 men-at-arms and 250 archers or so (1000/5000), which is still more of a collection that I had when I was 12 and bought Chainmail. is sometimes said to be more suited to skirmish-sized fights than large battles, probably for this reason. On the other hand, there's really no reason you can't increase the figure-to-man ratio to, say, 1:40, and then reduce ground scale by the same factor. The game Fantasy Wargaming has a neat chart in it that graphs figure ratio to ground scale. You divide how many figures you have into how many troops there are, look that up on the chart, and it tells you your figure ratio and ground scale. The heavy weapons are there because you can still use them in a man-to-man game. They don't operate on the standard weapon-vs-armor table because if you get hit by them you're dead, period, no roll required. Not exactly. In the main, the Fantasy Supplement is used in 1:20 battles. Gygax, for instance, wrote an article in a magazine (I forget which one) which included the lineup of the Battle of Five Armies using Chainmail. It's in 1:20 rules. All of Thorin's company of dwarves is represented by a single Hero figure. People often ask the early players how Chainmail was used to play D&D, and most say it wasn't. When pressed, they'll say that it was the man-to-man rules that were used, which appears to be not quite accurate either. This is, I think, how you heard that the Fantasy Supplement is meant for 1:1 figures. And, of course, D&D suggests fighting battles with Chainmail where normal figures are 1:20 and fantastic figures are 1:1. Why do you say that? The man-to-man rules use all the mass combat rules except where superseded by the man-to-man section. Post Melee Morale is not modified in MTM, so it should still count. I don't think Gygax was using language that specific. The Man-to-Man tables ARE Combat Tables. Anyway, that would seem to support the opposite: that the Fantasy Supplement uses 1:20 rules. I don't know why that is, either. Agreed. |
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Mar 14, 2015 9:28:21 GMT -6
In Chainmail itself, there doesn't seem to be any support for using the man-to-man rules with fantasy. Fantastic figures attack using the mass combat (or man-to-man) system against normal troops. It's the "or man-to-man" part that he is talking about. Figures like Dragons and Elementals don't use weapons, so have no obvious way to roll on the man-to-man tables. Sure, you can make something up, like "dragon claws are like swords," but that's the lack of support rsdean mentions. |
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Mar 14, 2015 9:56:17 GMT -6
I'd go a step further and speculate, you could completely eliminate the Man-to-Man table from Chainmail, and the game would still work just fine. MtM has never struck me as particularly well integrated into the rules.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2015 10:23:12 GMT -6
It is pretty common, even today, for miniature wargames to have some figures represent multiple men whereas other figures represent only one (usually a leader-type). So, on the game table, the distinction between normal combat (figures representing multiple men) and fantastic combat (figures representing a heroic individual or monster) is much clearer. Today I often see the that multiple-men figures are mounted on rectangular bases whereas individuals are mounted on round bases. Not sure how old that convention is. As far as using the Man-to-man rules with the fantasy-types like elfs and dwarfs, that would just be a case of looking at whatever armor or weapon the actual miniature was using. No charts or rules necessary. Although I generally consider the 1:20 combat system to be better than the 1:1 system, even if we were to use it for one on one combat. Figures like Dragons and Elementals don't use weapons, so have no obvious way to roll on the man-to-man tables. Sure, you can make something up, like "dragon claws are like swords," but that's the lack of support rsdean mentions. It's probably a safe bet to say that such a situation never happened back in the day. If you had a dragon going up against a single non-heroic individual, you wouldn't even need to roll. Flunky is now dead. I guess this points to the primary problem. D&D has a combat system based on a set of rules that really weren't designed for what D&D needs: which is often a groups of non-heroic flunkies fighting a single fantastic monster. |
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Mar 14, 2015 10:44:14 GMT -6
I guess this points to the primary problem. D&D has a combat system based on a set of rules that really weren't designed for what D&D needs: which is often a groups of non-heroic flunkies fighting a single fantastic monster. I would say D&D hit the nail on the head with the entire concept of "hit points"--the killer feature, lacking in Chainmail, that allows a party of low-level PCs to overcome a fantastic monster through teamwork. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Mar 14, 2015 10:59:23 GMT -6
Sure, you can make something up, like "dragon claws are like swords," but that's the lack of support rsdean mentions. That's how Gary handled it in M&T. I believe fantastic men (or other weapon users) attack using man-to-man resolution, but non-weapon users always attack using mass combat. Keep in mind that a lot of creatures are weapon users. For instance balrogs and wraiths use swords and true trolls fight with two-handed swords or axes. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 14, 2015 11:15:08 GMT -6
Keep in mind that a lot of creatures are weapon users. For instance balrogs and wraiths use swords and true trolls fight with two-handed swords or axes. What you'll find in most of these instances is that these types are immune to normal attacks and will only use the FCT with like type opponents. If attacking normal foot or horsemen, the Mass Combat Tables make the most sense where they will basically be mowing down figures or causing them to rout due to a failed morale check. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Mar 14, 2015 12:47:21 GMT -6
Keep in mind that a lot of creatures are weapon users. For instance balrogs and wraiths use swords and true trolls fight with two-handed swords or axes. What you'll find in most of these instances is that these types are immune to normal attacks and will only use the FCT with like type opponents. If attacking normal foot or horsemen, the Mass Combat Tables make the most sense where they will basically be mowing down figures or causing them to rout due to a failed morale check. I wholeheartedly agree. Its by far the most sensible in chainmail for fantastic creatures to attack normals via mass combat and fantastic opponents via fantasy combat. I was trying to address the question of whether fantastic combatants could use man-to-man. |
|
|
|
Post by rsdean on Mar 14, 2015 13:46:14 GMT -6
Fantastic figures attack using the mass combat (or man-to-man) system against normal troops. It's the "or man-to-man" part that he is talking about. Figures like Dragons and Elementals don't use weapons, so have no obvious way to roll on the man-to-man tables. Sure, you can make something up, like "dragon claws are like swords," but that's the lack of support rsdean mentions. Worst case would be something like a Wight. It "melees as light horse and defends as heavy horse". I'd have a hard time coming up with a way to read that that would make sense if it were supposed to apply to the man-to-man section, rather than the mass combat tables. Each wraith gets a "horse" attack (i.e. a mace or flail)? How does defending like a heavy horse work on the man-to-man tables for a wight? Can I attempt to "unhorse" it and stun it? Perhaps I'm reading my more recent years of skirmish gaming into this, but, as far as the post-melee morale rules go, it looks like they would be difficult to apply if I had only handful of figures scattered around in separate melee zones. If I were using them for a castle attack, let's say, and I have a ladder assault team whihc has reached the battlement, facing in two directions as defenders counterattack along the walls, how do I divide that up? With only a few figures in contact, won't I get the "melee continues" result most of the time because I'm dealing with 1 or 2 figures on each side. Maybe the whole wall counts as a melee, maybe each half? If I'd going to make things up (and I have the experience to do that now) , I'd still rule that those things were unrelated. (Wish I could cut and paste rules sections as we hit these points....) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2015 13:51:11 GMT -6
Most wargamers have several hundreds or even thousands of figures; CHAINMAIL was written for mass battles, not skirmishes.
We used monsters with Man to Man all the time. Dragons melee as four Heavy Horse... so, Lance. Balrog as two Heavy Horse... likewise, Lance. Armored Foot would be Halberd or Polearm, Light Horse were spear, Medium Horse were lance, Heavy Foot were sword.
These of course were conventions, and the referee could decide what he wanted. That's one of the reasons to HAVE a referee.
Okay, granted, it's not spelled out explicitly in the rules, but Crom's hairy nutsack, people, it's not that complicated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2015 13:58:06 GMT -6
Worst case would be something like a Wight. It "melees as light horse and defends as heavy horse". I'd have a hard time coming up with a way to read that that would make sense if it were supposed to apply to the man-to-man section, rather than the mass combat tables. Each wraith gets a "horse" attack (i.e. a mace or flail)? How does defending like a heavy horse work on the man-to-man tables for a wight? Can I attempt to "unhorse" it and stun it? Don't be foolish. How do you tell a Heavy Horse from a Light Horse? Defends like Heavy Horse means plate armor and shield; attacks like Light Horse would mean sword or spear. It's called "Heavy Horse," not "Heavy Horse with Guy On Top," because neither Gary nor Jeff thought people would apply incredibly convoluted logic to a straightforward situation. The figure attacks like the warrior, not the mount. And as far as "attempting to 'unhorse' it an stun it," my reply as referee would be "don't be stupid." The question makes no sense. Neither author thought they explicitly had to say "use common sense in interpreting rules." Perhaps I'm reading my more recent years of skirmish gaming into this, but, as far as the post-melee morale rules go, it looks like they would be difficult to apply if I had only handful of figures scattered around in separate melee zones. If I were using them for a castle attack, let's say, and I have a ladder assault team whihc has reached the battlement, facing in two directions as defenders counterattack along the walls, how do I divide that up? With only a few figures in contact, won't I get the "melee continues" result most of the time because I'm dealing with 1 or 2 figures on each side. Maybe the whole wall counts as a melee, maybe each half? If I'd going to make things up (and I have the experience to do that now) , I'd still rule that those things were unrelated. (Wish I could cut and paste rules sections as we hit these points....) CHAINMAIL is not a skirmish set of rules, it's intended for formed units. And yes, in a castle attack you will get "melee continues" most of the time, that is a feature not a bug. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 14, 2015 14:59:53 GMT -6
I was trying to address the question of whether fantastic combatants could use man-to-man. Ah, sorry Red Baron. I should have read up thread a little more carefully. FWIW, I would have said yes, like Michael, without throwing around Crom's hairy nutsack.  Though, I agree with mushgnomes sentiment that it does not come across as well integrated with the overall rules. In fact, it seems as if the Fantasy Supplement was primarily written with the Mass Combat tables in mind. Thanks @gronanofsimmerya for clearing that up. I'm not sure I would have naturally come to the conclusion that both HH and MH attack as lance or that AF attack as polearms on the man to man table. It's a helpful clarification on how you use to play the game, especially with the Fantasy Supplement. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2015 17:26:25 GMT -6
Well, when looking at it, think about the mass combat tables; if you think about it a bit, you will realize that the combat tables' classification of "Light Foot, Heavy Foot," et. al., are for bodies of troops with certain armor... and the weapons to deal with that armor. Not only is it illogical to assume that Heavy Horse are knights in plate armor with daggers or rubber chickens for weapons, but the combat table specifically says that Swiss and Landsknecht troops, famous for their halberds and two handed swords, attack as Armored Foot.
And now I'm wondering what missile weapon is the equivalent of Crom's hairy nutsack... heavy catapult, perhaps?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2015 17:33:08 GMT -6
Another thing worth reiterating: IN my first CHAINMAIL battle, I was horrendously confused. I had no idea what most of these things were... I had heard of swords, and Vikings, and chainmail, but I had never heard of a halberd, or a Landsknecht, or a turcopole, or an arquebus, etc, etc, etc. So the next week I toddled my little butt down to the Lake Geneva Public Library and started reading. Here's a good place to start: www.amazon.com/Medieval-warfare-Terence-Wise/dp/0803853793And another www.amazon.com/ENGLISH-WEAPONS-WARFARE-499-1600-D/dp/0853684723/ref=la_B001H9TEVO_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1426375958&sr=1-2 |
|
|
|
Post by rsdean on Mar 14, 2015 17:58:16 GMT -6
Well, I defer, of course, to your experience as to what you guys actually did with the rules. I'm just pointing out that the written rules make sense (and use terminology consistent with) with the mass combat tables and require a lot of interpolation with the man-to-man tables. As far as whether the man-to-man sections functions as small skirmish rules, there's no indication that any particular size of combat was intended. My favorite pre-Chainmail rules (that I use regularly) is/are Charge!. That had the advantage of being a hardcover book with a much larger page count, so they could include two sample battle reports to give the reader an idea of the size of game they were contemplating. I didn't have access to the 'zines with battle reports when I first obtained Chainmail.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2015 18:24:32 GMT -6
Lots of people didn't. But one has to be willing to do some logical extrapolation, which was typical of all wargame rules, at least back then.
The mass combat tables say "Heavy Horse," not "Knight on Heavy Horse." Therefore, we may assume that the troop type characterizes the warrior.
The mass combat tables obviously assume weapons suitable for armor type. This is further proven by the Swiss/Landsknecht attacking as Armored Foot, though they are in fact lightly armored themselves.
Therefore, when using the Man to Man tables for fantasy creatures, we carry those principles forward. That is how we deduced that dragons attacking as Heavy Horse would get that number of lance attacks; the devistating effect of Heavy Horse on the combat table assumes charging with lance, because otherwise you wouldn't get that huge combat power.
You have to be willing and able to think it through a bit, but that was usual for miniatures rules, at least at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 14, 2015 18:42:59 GMT -6
Well, when looking at it, think about the mass combat tables; if you think about it a bit, you will realize that the combat tables' classification of "Light Foot, Heavy Foot," et. al., are for bodies of troops with certain armor... and the weapons to deal with that armor. Not only is it illogical to assume that Heavy Horse are knights in plate armor with daggers or rubber chickens for weapons, but the combat table specifically says that Swiss and Landsknecht troops, famous for their halberds and two handed swords, attack as Armored Foot. And now I'm wondering what missile weapon is the equivalent of Crom's hairy nutsack... heavy catapult, perhaps? For historical troop types on the man to man tables the weapon and armor classes are easy enough to determine. It is the implementation of the Fantasy Supplement to the man to man tables where things can become convoluted. I would not have naturally assumed a Dragon gets 4 attacks as a lance just because he is categorized as 4HH. Most people assign a weapon class based on their closest approximation of what the creatures innate weapons resemble. Part of the reason this approach is adopted is because it's supported in other write ups like The Battle of Five Armies found in the first issue of The Dragon. For example, there they have the Eagles attack as 4LH and defend as 4HH, yet for man to man they list them as flail/ chain & shield. Wargs they categorize as HF and for man to man, 2 daggers/ leather armor. So, your suggestions for some of these creatures found on the Fantasy Combat tables is very useful. As for Crom's hairy nutsack......definitely a bombard, since it fires explosive shells  |
|
|
|
Post by rsdean on Mar 14, 2015 19:05:34 GMT -6
Now, to raise a question that is directly related to the topic, let's go back to the troll example from M&T, with his six attacks against normal men with one of them at +3... The context seems to be mass battles of some flavor rather than the Alternate Combat System. (?) It refers you to Book III, which refers you back to Chainmail. So that's 6 attacks on the Chainmail Man-to-man tables using some weapon I've chosen (as the referee) as typical of heavy foot (or armored or whatever), using 2d6, with one at a +3? Or... If it's the Alternate Combat System and the troll is loose among my mercenaries or bearers, the troll gets 6 attacks (including one at +3) for 1d6 damage (because this is without Greyhawk), using the Monsters Attacking 4-6 HD column? <Oops, read first, then post: 6 attacks as up to 1 hit die monster, which is equivalent to first level character> I'd rather take the first, since at least the creature is only attacking with human strength (as it were) six times, as opposed to option two, where he's getting six attacks at monstrous strength, one of which is even more monstrous with that +3. <Edit: OK, that's probably not an intended reading.> I'll admit that I didn't usually use that multiple attacks per level rule, but I'm running an occasional game again now and would like to know which commonly agreed rules I'm ignoring.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2015 19:13:00 GMT -6
Well, the Lake Geneva group always used the "alternate combat system". So the troll would roll six times on the 4-6 HD column, or maybe if you were a sadist since the troll is 6+1 hd you have it roll on the 7-9 table.
Either way, one of the six attacks is +3.
Or you could just do what Gary did and roll a six sider and that's how many normal mercenaries the troll kills this turn.
If I were to do it now, I'd roll a d6 and add +3 to it, so the troll would kill 4-9 normal mercenaries or bearers per turn. Yes, it's lethal. It's supposed to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by rsdean on Mar 14, 2015 19:18:13 GMT -6
Yikes.
Ok, I'm now going back to read this whole thread in detail again, and won't type before reading again (at least tonight).
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Mar 14, 2015 21:24:43 GMT -6
This thread is good sauce. I'd go a step further and speculate, you could completely eliminate the Man-to-Man table from Chainmail, and the game would still work just fine. MtM has never struck me as particularly well integrated into the rules. Well, perhaps. Although, you are supposed to use Man to Man for sieges.... And as concerns D&D, we are told to use Man to Man to resolve boarding actions during naval engagements. <shrug> |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 15, 2015 1:03:31 GMT -6
Here's an except from EGG's article D&D, AD&D, and Gaming from The Dragon #26, p28-29, June 1979. There's quite a bit more of it too, which is well worth a read...
(emphasis added).
Nowadays there is also the Dalluhn Manuscript in the mix. It (presumably) is representative of those "handed out" copies EGG mentioned, or something pretty close to them. It uses the Man-to-Man combat rules (with a few extra tweaks including the level versus AC attack matrix) so appears to corroborate the above account.
The last sentence might be a bit hand-wavy, but still supports Gronan's comment earlier in this thread that D&D as played was ahead of what was printed from very early. Despite this it's clear enough that D&D used the man-to-man rules in the beginning.
|
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Mar 15, 2015 6:55:11 GMT -6
Despite this it's clear enough that D&D used the man-to-man rules in the beginning. Multiple discussions with Dave Arneson's players have established that Dave only used the Chainmail man to man rules for the first session or two of Blackmoor before he began tinkering with the combat rules. Dave didn't tell his players the rules, but the evidence suggests that he was changing them as he went along, only settling with his variant of OD&D after the boxed set was published. The "wizard Gaylord" character sheet in Playing at the World has values on it that don't correspond to either Chainmail or OD&D. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2015 13:34:08 GMT -6
Neither Dave NOR Gary distributed rules to their players, which makes discussions about "the rules" before publication fairly tough. Rob Kuntz would be the best source for that now, but even then that doesn't speak to what Gary might have done before Rob started co-reffing.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 15, 2015 16:10:03 GMT -6
So it seems to me that EGG took Dave's notes and developed them into what he termed (in the article above) his "“Original” version of D&D" by around Spring 1973. Meanwhile, Dave was further developing his own rules in a somewhat different direction. So the Dalluhn Manuscript is interesting to us now because it likely represents something pretty close to EGG's "“Original” version of D&D" from 1973.
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 15, 2015 18:05:42 GMT -6
I'd go a step further and speculate, you could completely eliminate the Man-to-Man table from Chainmail, and the game would still work just fine. MtM has never struck me as particularly well integrated into the rules. Well, perhaps. Although, you are supposed to use Man to Man for sieges.... And as concerns D&D, we are told to use Man to Man to resolve boarding actions during naval engagements. <shrug> Not to be argumentative, but the early versions of what would become Chainmail (Panzerfaust, Spartan International Monthly, DB#5) also contained rules for sieges. These versions lacked the Man to Man system entirely, which may explain why they do not appear well integrated. The complete Panzerfaust rules are posted on Playing At The WorldThe naval engagement and boarding rules seem to me to be a whole different ball of wax that themselves are not well integrated IMHO. I'd like to hear any play reports of others that actually used the RAW. Much like encounters in the underworld or wilderness, my guess is that combat was resolved using the Alternative Combat System instead. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Mar 15, 2015 18:54:27 GMT -6
Some aspects of that article are perhaps simplified, and may lend to a misleading impression. As regards a few of the details mentioned:
Dave Wesely, not Dave Arneson, introduced the idea of individual roles to play to their gaming group, though it was certainly Arneson who decided to import Wesely's Braunstein game to a fantasy medieval setting and call it Black Moor instead of Brown Stone.
For the first Blackmoor games, they used CHAINMAIL's Fantasy Combat Table, not really the Man to Man table. After the first couple games Dave switched to a 2d6 roll under method of his own devising based on individual weapon skill and utilizing Hit points. The weapons and general method where definitely influenced by the Man to Man table, yes, but they were not exactly using the Man to man rules or the table itself.
Gygax's statement regarding Blackmoor Dungeon being a development of CM's advice to use paper and pencil for siege mines is a bit of wishful thinking, at best. Arneson got the idea for a creepy castle with a dungeon adventure from watching monster movies, and thought it would be a great way to fill the need for a bounded setting for Braunstein style games. Maps followed as a matter of course.
To me, one of the most interesting things in the quoted paragraph is Gary crediting Dave for creating the familiar 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc. level progression ("...success in games meaning that the hero would gain the ability of five, rather than but four men, eventually gaining the exaulted status of superhero..").
|
|
