|
Post by retrorob on Feb 24, 2019 9:23:58 GMT -6
Like I indicated above, the quotation comes from the 2nd edition. I agree though that giving the Basilisk Dragon's traits is probably not a good idea. Maybe "touch" by the Basilisk/Cockatrice means rear/flank attacks, performed either by "any figure" in order to eliminate that monster or by the Basilisk (Cockatrice) itself? It doesn't need to roll for attack - a touch is enough, just like a paralyzing touch of Wights (Ghouls). So I'd say - these are two different forms of attack.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Feb 24, 2019 10:25:41 GMT -6
Yes, the 2nd edition has just one paragraph on other types of Dragons, the 3rd edition has two paragraphs but drops the last line about Basilisk/Cockatrice, probably because they have their own section so the reference here was confusing.
I agree that the Basilisk description indicates two types of attacks:
Gaze, which turns to stone any figure to stone that looks at the face of the Basilisk, except for a M-U (all Wizards) or Superhero that has saved by rolling 6 or better. I would treat "looking at their face" as any figure that is facing the front of the Basilisk figure and has line of sight. But I would impose a range limit. And it seems the referee would need to decide whether the M-U/Superhero only needs to save once or continuously. Also, could figures cover their eyes to protect themselves? If so, could they still attack with penalty?
Touch, which would affect any figure that the Basilisk figure moves into (such as a rear attack) or any figure that touches the Basilisk (such as to attack it from behind, or a saved M-U/Superhero attacking from the front). Everyone gets a save for this.
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on Feb 25, 2019 3:10:00 GMT -6
Another one: Let's suppose that a Superhero is being targeted by a Warlock. What is his saving throw against missile? Is the default value "of 6 or better" to be adjusted, so the Superhero is saved on 4?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2019 11:25:01 GMT -6
I read that as for dice rolled by the figure in question -- that is, the magic user in question.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2019 23:07:05 GMT -6
If it may amuse, my players have discovered Chainmail, and they want me to run a game for them. Mayhem will ensue.
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on Feb 27, 2019 5:03:35 GMT -6
Next one: MISSILE FIRE table
1. Let's assume that I got 140 archers, firing at 200 footmen with shields. I understand that it's 7 men (ratio 1:20) vs 10 men; if I roll 1-3, 2 enemy figures are to be removed; if 4-6, 3 figures. Am I right?
2. Please advise on troops categories:
Unarmored = LF / LH 1/2 armor or shield = HF / MH fully armored = AF / HH
Is that correct?
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Feb 27, 2019 7:17:37 GMT -6
2. Please advise on troops categories: Unarmored = LF / LH 1/2 armor or shield = HF / MH fully armored = AF / HH Is that correct? I think of LF/HF as classifications of troop order rather than differences in armor. *Light foot fights in loose order, heavy foot fights in disciplined ranks. *Armored foot is where armor comes into play. I'm not a fan of the OD&D interpretation (LF = leather, HF = chain, AF = plate) because it doesn't reflect historical combat very well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2019 10:41:13 GMT -6
Next one: MISSILE FIRE table 1. Let's assume that I got 140 archers, firing at 200 footmen with shields. I understand that it's 7 men (ratio 1:20) vs 10 men; if I roll 1-3, 2 enemy figures are to be removed; if 4-6, 3 figures. Am I right? 2. Please advise on troops categories: Unarmored = LF / LH 1/2 armor or shield = HF / MH fully armored = AF / HH Is that correct? As far as missile fire,yes. More when I have a real keyboard.
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on Feb 27, 2019 15:14:53 GMT -6
So 60 archers (=3 figures) can't do anything against Fully Armored target, if I understand correctly? Gronan, please take note that I'm not a wargamer, all your comments are highly valuable and will be most appreciated
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2019 18:07:56 GMT -6
That is correct. Missile fire historically was a mass weapon, not individual sniping.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2019 18:09:58 GMT -6
Light Foot, other than Swiss/Landsknecht, is confined to troops such as archers, siege crews, etc... troops that are not primarily melee troops.
Heavy foot can be anything from Vikings in leather or Flemish spearmen in padded gambesons to Saxon huscarles in full mail; Heavy Foot are distinguished by being primarily close order melee troops.
Armored Foot are dismounted knights.
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on Feb 28, 2019 3:50:38 GMT -6
OK. So these melee categories (LF, HF, AF) simply don't match ones from the missile table (unarmored, 1/2 armor or shield, fully armored). That's what I wanted to know.
When you play Chainmail nowadays, do you use this table or some other rule for missile fire?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2019 10:08:05 GMT -6
I use those tables.
|
|
|
Post by murquhart72 on Mar 8, 2019 20:02:56 GMT -6
Light Foot, other than Swiss/Landsknecht, is confined to troops such as archers, siege crews, etc... troops that are not primarily melee troops. Heavy foot can be anything from Vikings in leather or Flemish spearmen in padded gambesons to Saxon huscarles in full mail; Heavy Foot are distinguished by being primarily close order melee troops. Armored Foot are dismounted knights. Thank you for this. I have no real experience with wargaming or history and was stymied by what the terms 'Light Foot' or 'Armored Foot' actually meant for D&D. I assumed Light Foot meant lightly armored (leather) with a hand weapon. Heavy armored was loaded down with plate, maybe a shield, etc., no real idea. What I'm getting from your post is: Light Foot is unarmored (leather at BEST) with a single hand weapon (shield?). Heavy Foot means leather or possibly mail, with or without shield and a hand weapon. Armored would be clad in plate, with shield, plus a couple of hand weapons to bring to bare. Is it that malleable, or is there more structure to the nomenclature that I'm still not getting?
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on May 7, 2019 3:27:51 GMT -6
I examined Fantasy Combat Table (APPENDIX E). Footnote relating to Wizard caught my attention: We know that Wizard's class includes "Sorcerers at -1, Warlocks at -2, and Magicians at -3)". So let's back to the table: Wizard needs 9 to kill a Troll/Ogre (score over 8). I assume that Sorcerer needs 10, Warlock 11 etc. But what about defensive capabilities? Are they also affected? Do the attackers get any bonus against weaker magic users? For example Troll/Ogre needs 12 to kill a Wizard, so will it be 10 versus Warlock?
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on Jul 27, 2019 5:49:55 GMT -6
APPENDIX E:
I'm not sure how to understand this fall back (I do realize that this is a term from wargaming). For True Trolls there is only the number to kill given (dice score to kill).
Besides, in Vol. III there is a LAND COMBAT section:
How was it played back then? Do you use it, when playing CM nowadays?
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 27, 2019 6:44:30 GMT -6
APPENDIX E: I'm not sure how to understand this fall back (I do realize that this is a term from wargaming). For True Trolls there is only the number to kill given ( dice score to kill). Besides, in Vol. III there is a LAND COMBAT section: How was it played back then? Do you use it, when playing CM nowadays? FALL BACK is a regular full move away from the enemy, usually toward your own troops side. For Trolls/Ogres it's 9". Movements are given in Appendix D and you should usually refer to monster descriptions for clarification on other details. True Trolls are particularly resilient in CM. As for the LAND COMBAT question, this has been asked many times. The traditional answer is that they never used CM for D&D and always used the alternative combat system to resolve conflicts.
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Jul 27, 2019 16:26:05 GMT -6
APPENDIX E: I'm not sure how to understand this fall back (I do realize that this is a term from wargaming). For True Trolls there is only the number to kill given ( dice score to kill). Besides, in Vol. III there is a LAND COMBAT section: How was it played back then? Do you use it, when playing CM nowadays? Here's how I untangle the bit about trolls. On the Combat table, superheroes will push back 'trolls & ogres' on a 5, and kill them on a 6 or better. In the monster section, there is a separate chart saying that superheroes will kill 'true trolls' on an 8 or better, with no reference to pushing back. This might infer three categories: ogre, troll, and true troll, but I don't think so. The write up itself seems to infer that 'true trolls' are just normal trolls as we know them in D&D now, while 'what are commonly called trolls are more properly Ogres'. To me, the description seems to refer only to two categories: ogres (pseudo-trolls) and (true) trolls. In effect, the table in the unit entry doesn't mesh with the fantasy combat table. I don't think it's an editorial error in rules, just in terminology and presentation: I think what's implied is that the numbers in the FCT are for 'trolls/ogres'—or rather, 'ogres, commonly but erroneously known as trolls'—while the numbers in the monster entry are for actual trolls. Unlike ogres, trolls have unimpeachable morale and will never fall back from a combat roll, therefore the numbers given are to kill only.
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on Jul 27, 2019 16:57:22 GMT -6
Yeah, I got the distinction between the false and true troll But then again - heroes, dragons, rocs and giants "never check morale" as well, and yet you can drive them back. So I don't think that's the reason. I've just used Fantasy Combat Table to play some solo hexcrawl episodes involving powerful NPC's in my campaign. Except for the "drive back", the other problem arose in the process. Who gets the initiative? Am I supposed to use Man-to-Man rules (weapon priority etc.)? But what if both sides fight with swords - who is the attacker actually? What does "drive back" mean in such pair combat? For now I decided on group initative roll at the beginning of each round/turn. Drive back means that the defender has no counter attack and must retreat.
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Jul 27, 2019 17:10:14 GMT -6
Yeah, I got the distinction between the false and true troll But then again - heroes, dragons, rocs and giants "never check morale" as well, and yet you can drive them back. So I don't think that's the reason. I've just used Fantasy Combat Table to play some solo hexcrawl episodes involving powerful NPC's in my campaign. Except for the "drive back", the other problem arose in the process. Who gets the initiative? Am I supposed to use Man-to-Man rules (weapon priority etc.)? But what if both sides fight with swords - who is the attacker actually? What does "drive back" mean in such pair combat? For now I decided on group initative roll at the beginning of each round/turn. Drive back means that the defender has no counter attack and must retreat. Don't take the descriptions of morale to be absolute, as with all things in Chainmail, therein lies naught but madness. Heroes, dragons, rocs and giants never check morale, but can be driven back. Trolls never check morale, and apparently are never driven back (do they have better morale? Is it because their attacks are more impetuous? Maybe. It's just the way it is, come up with an explanation if you must). Another option is to assume that rolling one less than what's given on the troll table produces an "equal—push back" result. As far as initiative order goes, it can be ambiguous. In all cases, I argue that whoever moved into contact first (with the intent to attack) is the attacker. If that's ambiguous, such as when both are charging each other, then whichever side won initiative at the start of the round is the attacker. In fact, most of the time that two figures simultaneously move into contact, the side with initiative will make contact first anyway, since they got to move first. If it's still ambiguous, I'd toss a die and see who gets to be the attacker, or call it a simultaneous strike and allow both parties to attack at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Jul 27, 2019 17:14:20 GMT -6
On driving back, I think that's a good interpretation and probably the intended one.
If the attacker gets his first shot in and drives the opponent back, then the opponent must fall back one move (it's not spelled out that way, but there are several examples in the book of figures being "driven back" and they are all one move), and the move happens immediately, before they get a chance to counterattack.
Edit: Also, unless you are using simultaneous initiative, you should be rolling for initiative at the start of the round anyway, since that affects who goes first each phase. Even with simultaneous initiative, a simple roll at the start can determine who counts as the attacker when there's a tie during melee.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 27, 2019 17:47:01 GMT -6
In some war games they call it a PUSH BACK. It's a successful result for melee, though a kill is preferable. Ultimately what it does in Chainmail is end the turn of melee, unless the attacker charged and still has movement that would bring them back in contact. For the figure that is counter attacking such a result may allow it to avoid melee on the next turn by moving out of range.
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on Jul 27, 2019 18:03:28 GMT -6
For the figure that is counter attacking such a result may allow it to avoid melee on the next turn by moving out of range. But Wizards, Hero-types and Wraiths can withdraw from combat anyway. Another issue - there are target numbers stated for Elves armed with magical weapons (e.g. Ogres, Fantasy Combat Table, Score 7). Is this target number to kill or push back? Probably I'm overthinking it
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 27, 2019 18:57:29 GMT -6
But Wizards, Hero-types and Wraiths can withdraw from combat anyway. Why do you think that? Oh, I see you're talking about the note on the combat table. I take this as an option for those figures when they are attacked. In other words, no counter blow if they choose to fall back. Yet they are subjected to an attack. I do not take this as a hit and run rule. Elves armed with magic swords attack monsters found on the Fantasy Combat Table using the scores found under their description. Same rules apply for fall back and kill. The Elf will still defend as a normal Elf- heavy foot. The Fall Back rule does not apply to him. So, they would need an 8+ to kill an Ogre with a magic sword. A 7 would be a Push Back of 9". But, the Ogre would attack the Elf as six heavy foot. He would get six dice (HF vs. HF) where a score of 6 on any of them would be a kill. If you use the man-to-man tables the Ogre would get six blows perhaps with a mace vs. chain and shield. A score of 8+ is a kill. So, if the Elf is able to score a Push Back that breaks melee, he may not want to re-engage the Ogre on the next turn. He would have room to maneuver and would no longer be locked in by the 1-3" melee range rule. The Ogre will be 9" away and the Elf has a 12" move that could make re-engagement unlikely.
|
|