Chainmail Clone

[tetramorph]

Mar 27, 2016 10:02:22 GMT -6 krusader74 said:

This weekend I started writing a CM retro-clone that also tries to be a FKR. I just finished the very first draft. It's tentatively called "Goliath--Guidelines for War Games." The PDF is on dropbox. The Markdown-formatted plain text is in my pastebin. It's intentionally short--only 7 pages. My eventual goal is to fit it on a few index cards, because EGG once said: "Many a set of old time wargames rules were written on a few index cards" (see the FKR thread for the source). If anyone wishes to contribute, let me know. Any help is appreciated!

Wow. This is awesome. It's Easter (Happy Easter!) but when things calm back down I will study and return. First impression: light, tight, logical, gloriously abstract! Thanks!

[krusader74]

Mar 27, 2016 10:53:45 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

Mar 27, 2016 10:02:22 GMT -6 krusader74 said:

This weekend I started writing a CM retro-clone that also tries to be a FKR. I just finished the very first draft. It's tentatively called "Goliath--Guidelines for War Games." The PDF is on dropbox. The Markdown-formatted plain text is in my pastebin. It's intentionally short--only 7 pages. My eventual goal is to fit it on a few index cards, because EGG once said: "Many a set of old time wargames rules were written on a few index cards" (see the FKR thread for the source). If anyone wishes to contribute, let me know. Any help is appreciated!

Wow. This is awesome. It's Easter (Happy Easter!) but when things calm back down I will study and return. First impression: light, tight, logical, gloriously abstract! Thanks!

WRT the title, Goliath, I saw this article in Science Mag posted on March 24th: Slaughter at the bridge: Uncovering a colossal Bronze Age battle.

The article says most bronze age literature deals with mundane things like trade. There are epic battles described in the literature, but up until now, there has been very little evidence suggesting such battles took place.

This bronze age battle at Tollense (NE Germany) happened in 1,200 BC (about a 100 years before the Trojan War). 4,000 combatants. 750 casualties. These were professional fighters, not farmers-- 27% of the skeletons had healed traumas from previous fights. The combatants weren't locals-- Some were from as far away as Scandinavia and Southern Europe. And they were well armed and well trained--

If you fight with body armor and helmet and corselet, you need daily training or you can't move. That's why, for example, the biblical David--a shepherd--refused to don a suit of armor and bronze helmet before fighting Goliath.

[derv]

krusader74 It seems that you have captured the simplicity of the mass combat rules and made it your own. Your methods of organization appeal to me. The only thing I noticed from a quick read through is that you appear to have hand waved the whole scale issue, probably for the best. You've also simplified terrain effects. This you may want to revisit. Overall, I like it.

[Deleted]

Mar 27, 2016 10:02:22 GMT -6 krusader74 said:

This weekend I started writing a CM retro-clone that also tries to be a FKR. I just finished the very first draft. It's tentatively called "Goliath--Guidelines for War Games." The PDF is on dropbox. The Markdown-formatted plain text is in my pastebin. It's intentionally short--only 7 pages. My eventual goal is to fit it on a few index cards, because EGG once said: "Many a set of old time wargames rules were written on a few index cards" (see the FKR thread for the source). If anyone wishes to contribute, let me know. Any help is appreciated!

I'll answer in more detail when I get back in a few days, but I've given it a once-over. Please note that "Free Kriegspiel" does not mean "Do any d**n thing you want;" it means "the referee's judgement is absolute, because they are an acknowledged expert in the subject". I could run a medieval wargame using Free Kriegspiel because I know the period well, and a few charts to add some necessary variability to the results are all I need. But you've gone too far overboard to the point where you fail to provide any reason to use your materials at all. At the VERY least I want to know why your numbers are what they are other than "I pulled them out of my ass." If I fight a historical battle, will they give me historical results?

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it's true. I encourage you to read up on "Free Kriegspiel" a bit, as well as "Rigid Kriegspiel," and then think about what you are really trying to accomplish.

As I said, a more detailed critique later.

[Deleted]

As far as "a few index cards," I could reduce CHAINMAIL to 4 index cards; movement, missile fire, post melee morale, morale due to excess casualties.

There. Now somebody get me a beer.

[derv]

Mar 31, 2016 9:40:17 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

I'll answer in more detail when I get back in a few days, but I've given it a once-over. Please note that "Free Kriegspiel" does not mean "Do any d**n thing you want;" it means "the referee's judgement is absolute, because they are an acknowledged expert in the subject". I could run a medieval wargame using Free Kriegspiel because I know the period well, and a few charts to add some necessary variability to the results are all I need. But you've gone too far overboard to the point where you fail to provide any reason to use your materials at all. At the VERY least I want to know why your numbers are what they are other than "I pulled them out of my ass." If I fight a historical battle, will they give me historical results?

I'll be interested in where you're going with this Michael. krusader47 seems to have remained fairly faithful to Chainmail's numbers in his clone. Or are you taking exception to certain points being made within his guidelines for play, titled "Ten Things"?

[krusader74]

Mar 31, 2016 9:40:17 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

you fail to provide any reason to use your materials at all

Here are five six excellent reasons to use this Chainmail retro-clone:

1. Its mechanics are Chainmail compatible, but it has been reworded, re-organized, and stripped down to the bare essence.
2. Chainmail is currently out of print and not-for-sale as a PDF. If you don't already have it, you are going to have a difficult time getting a legal copy second hand. But this is available online right now.
3. Even if Wizards of the Coast reprints Chainmail or releases it as a PDF on "DM's Guild", it will cost something, whereas this costs nothing. Free as in Beer.
4. Even if Wizards of the Coast reprints Chainmail or releases it as a PDF on "DM's Guild", it will have some kind of license. This is Public Domain. No restrictions. Free as in Speech. Modify it and use it as you will.
5. This is in plain text format. Plain text is universal. Every computer uses it. If there are only a few things you like about it, and you hate the rest, you can easily copy and paste those parts into your own materials.
6. This is a living document. If someone suggests improvements, then I will incorporate them into the text.

Mar 31, 2016 9:40:17 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

At the VERY least I want to know why your numbers are what they are other than "I pulled them out of my ass."

Because it's a Chainmail retro-clone. It should produce statistically similar outcomes. That's why I posted here on the "Chainmail Clone" thread, rather than the "FKR" thread. It is not meant to be a "FKR Manifesto," just a Chainmail-compatible wargame.

Mar 31, 2016 9:40:17 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

I encourage you to read up on "Free Kriegspiel" a bit, as well as "Rigid Kriegspiel"

As noted in the highly detailed overview I gave of "strict" versus "free" Kriegesspiele over in the FKR thread, I've already read this source on "rigid" Kriegesspiele:

• Nineteenth Century Military War Games: Lieutenant von Reisswitz's Kriegsspiel

And these original sources on "free" Kriegesspiele, which I summarized in that post:

• Beitrag zum Kriegsspiel (1876) by Julius Adrian Friedrich Wilhelm von Verdy du Vernois
• The tactical war game--A translation of Beitrag zum Kriegsspiel (1884) by J R MacDonnell
• A Simplified War Game--Translated from the French and arranged for American students

And this source on "simplified" Kriegesspiele, attempting to unify the two approaches:

• Rules for the conduct of the war-game (1884) by the UK War Office

As well as this modern source contrasting the two approaches:

• How We Decide by Major John F. Schmitt, USMCR

If you can suggest additional sources, that would be helpful constructive criticism.

[derv]

krusader74 I've taken a little closer look at your document and I have two palpable suggestions.

Under Fatigue, you could add "or a combination of four turns of melee and movement".

Also, I think your morale check needs a little tweaking. The results table leads to an average figure continuing melee 72% of the time with only a 2.7% chance of routing.

You might want to shift all the results up by two. So then melee would continue on a roll of 8 or >. This has a 41% chance of occurring and still maintains the resilience of those figures with +4 MR's.

To this I would then add a fourth category on the result table of "2 or less: Surrender". This would be beneficial for Post Melee Morale checks.

The final table would look like this:

Score	Result
8 or greater:	Melee continues
5-7:	Back 1 move
3-4:	Rout 1 move
2 or less:	Surrender

You can toy with these numbers a little, depending on what you want to achieve. These are just my quick ideas.

Alternatively, you could give some of the average troop types negative MR's instead. Then add to your table that surrender occurs on results less then 0. You mentioned in your definitions that MR represented an integer modifier from -4 to +4. I would give figures like peasants -4 MR. Maybe light infantry could be -2 MR?

[krusader74]

Apr 2, 2016 15:04:54 GMT -6 derv said:

krusader74 I've taken a little closer look at your document and I have two palpable suggestions.

Under Fatigue, you could add "or a combination of four turns of melee and movement".

Also, I think your morale check needs a little tweaking. ... you could give some of the average troop types negative MR's instead. Then add to your table that surrender occurs on results less then 0. You mentioned in your definitions that MR represented an integer modifier from -4 to +4. I would give figures like peasants -4 MR. Maybe light infantry could be -2 MR?

Thanks! These are really great suggestions. I've incorporated them into version 0.2 (2016-04-03), which I've uploaded to the web. The links for the plain text and PDF are still valid. Here's the change list:

• Added: Acknowledgements section -- to thank you for your help, and anyone else in the future who wants to contribute
• Added: URL of OD&D Discussion thread for Chainmail clones to the YAML metadata
• Fixed: Numerous spelling errors
• Added: Figures require 1 turn of rest per 3 turns of melee; or 5 turns of movement; or a combination of 4 turns of melee and movement; otherwise AR, DR and MR are all reduced by 1.
• Added: When testing morale after heavy losses, apply a -1 penalty to the roll per 25% losses taken.
• Added: Peasants with MR=-4 and Pts=0.5
• Changed: The Morale Check table so that surrender occurs on a result of less than 0
• Changed: The following Morale Ratings changed from 0

Troop Type	MR
Light Infantry	-2
Medium Infantry	-1
Heavy Cavalry	+1

The MR for Heavy Infantry, Light and Medium Cavalry stay at +0.

Morale will require more tweaks when I start play testing to achieve the goal of a Chainmail work-alike while simplifying as much as possible.

The Changes section will get commented-out in the final release version. I added it to track changes while its still under active development.

[derv]

Apr 3, 2016 4:04:15 GMT -6 krusader74 said:

Thanks! These are really great suggestions. I've incorporated them into version 0.2 (2016-04-03), which I've uploaded to the web.

Glad you found them helpful.

Admittedly, the simplification of morale will end up being a compromise to some degree, since you are trying to use one mechanic serve various functions found in Chainmail. I think that's okay.

Something to consider is some guidance on excess casualties. Chainmail triggers a check when any light troops receive 25% losses, when all medium troops or heavy infantry receive 33% losses, and when heavy cavalry receive 50% losses. On receiving additional casualties of equal quantity, troops will automatically rout or surrender. Heavy cavalry need not make another check. So, this may suggest an additional modifier of -10 MR after the initial morale check.

You will also have to address the question of rallying and the effect of continued retreat.

Of a separate matter, I noticed the absence of True Trolls from your list. These I would present as HI 3 and an MR +4 with an asterisk that they cannot be harmed by normal figures. The other Troll entry I would simply put Ogre in parenthesis. True Trolls have a clear advantage as 3 HI over an Ogres 6 MI. This figure does not really work as smoothly with your formula if you were trying to avoid any notations of immunity to normal attacks, though.

[krusader74]

Apr 3, 2016 8:37:29 GMT -6 derv said:

Something to consider is some guidance on excess casualties...

You will also have to address the question of rallying and the effect of continued retreat.

Of a separate matter, I noticed the absence of True Trolls from your list...

Thanks again for your help! I've just uploaded Version 0.3 (2016-04-04) to the web. The links for the plain text and PDF are still valid. Here's the change list:

• Added: Guidelines for Heavy Losses in the Morale Check section
• Added: Guidelines for Rout and Rally in the Morale Check section
• Added: References section for free online resources for wargames, Kriegsspielle and Medieval warfare
• Added: "lawns" to the list of Playing Areas, since that's what H. G. Wells used when he created Little Wars
• Added: Ogres in the Troop Types section
• Changed: Trolls in the Troop Types section

Keep the great suggestions coming! As I said, this is a work in progress.

If there's any interest, I could always upload this material to GitHub (or some other distributed revision control system) and make it into an Open Source project. That way people could make edits without going through me.

[kesher]

Awe. Some.

[krusader74]

This morning, I began work on a second Chainmail retro-clone, called Grognard. Here is a summary of the differences between the two:

Grognard	Goliath
100% faithful Chainmail clone--to make Grognards happy, if that's possible	Streamlined, simplified system that aims to produce statistically similar results to Chainmail--to make Grognards grumble
Rules heavy	Rules light
3 separate tables for missile fire	1 simplified missile-fire mechanic
3 separate morale check systems: post-melee, heavy losses, and charges	1 unified morale check mechanic inspired by D&D's 2d6 reaction roll
Still needs a Fantasy Supplement (added to v0.2 on 2016-04-11)	Already has fantasy guidelines
Still needs lots of work, including re-wording, re-organizing, spell checking, and lots of sections TODO	Fairly complete
Markdown plain text	Markdown plain text
PDF is digest sized	PDF is US letter sized

Both systems are for mass combat only, not man-to-man. There's also no jousting in either.

If you want to check out my progress, click on the links above for PDF or Markdown plain text.

If you want to help or provide constructive criticism, you can post below or PM me. Thanks to all who contribute!

[krusader74]

I just updated "Grognard" (v0.2, 2016-04-11) with the following changes:

• Added "Fantasy Options" section
• Added "Weather Options" section
• Started "Historical Options" section
• Appended temporary "Changes" section to track changes during development. This will be removed in the final version.
• Fixed formatting in missile fire tables. Fixed captions in point values and additional weapons costs tables.
• Added placeholder for "Acknowledgments" section

"Grognard" is the clone intended to be 100% faithful to the original.

The URLs for the Markdown plaintext and digest-sized PDF remain the same. The PDF is now 25 pages long.

[kesher]

I, for one, really appreciate all the references you've included in the living document for Goliath, as well as in this thread!

[kesher]

Alright, krusader74, I finally read Goliath over lunch today. It seems to me that you've successfully shaken out the essence of the original Chainmail rules! Awesome!

A few practical questions on the rules (guidelines!) themselves:

1. On the Melee table, HC v. HC is currently listed as 1/1 (5+); all other ARs, when pitted against their like, are 1/1 (6+). Is this perhaps a typo?

2. I always found the ghoul oddly underpriced in Chainmail, and feel the same here. For a creature with an AR/DR of LC/HC and two SAs, one of which is paralyzation, 10 pts. seems waaaay too cheap. My inclination would be to adjust the cost to 20 or 25.

3. Giant Orcs differ from "regular" orcs only in being one step higher on their AR. My inclination would be to give them an extra HT as well, and perhaps bump their cost up to 5.

4. Super Heroes really kick butt. Love it. (I guess that wasn't really a question...)

5. OH, and knowing that you're using Chainmail as your base, do you envision multiple HTs needing to be scored at once, or cumulatively? In the original it's of course the former; these rules simply don't specify one way or another (unless I missed something...)

[krusader74]

Apr 11, 2016 11:49:51 GMT -6 kesher said:

Alright, krusader74 , I finally read Goliath over lunch today. It seems to me that you've successfully shaken out the essence of the original Chainmail rules! Awesome!

A few practical questions on the rules (guidelines!) themselves:

1. On the Melee table, HC v. HC is currently listed as 1/1 (5+); all other ARs, when pitted against their like, are 1/1 (6+). Is this perhaps a typo?

2. I always found the ghoul oddly underpriced in Chainmail, and feel the same here. For a creature with an AR/DR of LC/HC and two SAs, one of which is paralyzation, 10 pts. seems waaaay too cheap. My inclination would be to adjust the cost to 20 or 25.

3. Giant Orcs differ from "regular" orcs only in being one step higher on their AR. My inclination would be to give them an extra HT as well, and perhaps bump their cost up to 5.

4. Super Heroes really kick butt. Love it. (I guess that wasn't really a question...)

5. OH, and knowing that you're using Chainmail as your base, do you envision multiple HTs needing to be scored at once, or cumulatively? In the original it's of course the former; these rules simply don't specify one way or another (unless I missed something...)

Thank you! I agree 100% with all the fixes and improvements you suggest! I just uploaded Goliath version 0.4 (2016-04-12) with the following changes:

• Fixed Wizards MR
• Fixed HC vs HC on melee table
• Changed ghoul from 10 Pts to 20 Pts
• Changed giant orcs from 1 Ht to 2 Hts, and from 2.5 Pts to 5 Pts
• Clarified when HTs need to be scored simultaneously or cumulatively. Under "3. Hits (HT)" in the Figures section, the new text reads: "If a unit consisting of figures with 1 HT each attacks a figure with multiple HTs, then they must score that many HTs simultaneously to remove it from play. Whereas, if a figure with multiple HTs attacks another figure with multiple HTs, then HTs only need to be scored cumulatively."
• Clarified meaning of AR+1. Under "4. Attack Rating (AR)" in the Figures section, the new text reads: "Under certain circumstances, like flanking, figures deserve a bonus to their attack capability; we denote this AR+1, which just means LI fights as MI, ..., and HC gets +1 on each die."
• A couple of cosmetic changes. For example, I added a pagebreak before the Changes section so that it's easy to print a copy without them. The PDF is only 8 pages without the Changes section.
• Added you, kesher , to the Acknowledgements section, to thank you for your valuable input!!!

The links for Goliath's Markdown plaintext and US letter-sized PDF are still valid.

Thanks again for taking the time to read this and offer improvements! I'd also value your input on my other project, Grognard, which attempts to be truer to the source material.

[kesher]

Apr 12, 2016 5:47:44 GMT -6 krusader74 said:

Apr 11, 2016 11:49:51 GMT -6 kesher said:

Alright, krusader74 , I finally read Goliath over lunch today. It seems to me that you've successfully shaken out the essence of the original Chainmail rules! Awesome!

A few practical questions on the rules (guidelines!) themselves:

1. On the Melee table, HC v. HC is currently listed as 1/1 (5+); all other ARs, when pitted against their like, are 1/1 (6+). Is this perhaps a typo?

2. I always found the ghoul oddly underpriced in Chainmail, and feel the same here. For a creature with an AR/DR of LC/HC and two SAs, one of which is paralyzation, 10 pts. seems waaaay too cheap. My inclination would be to adjust the cost to 20 or 25.

3. Giant Orcs differ from "regular" orcs only in being one step higher on their AR. My inclination would be to give them an extra HT as well, and perhaps bump their cost up to 5.

4. Super Heroes really kick butt. Love it. (I guess that wasn't really a question...)

5. OH, and knowing that you're using Chainmail as your base, do you envision multiple HTs needing to be scored at once, or cumulatively? In the original it's of course the former; these rules simply don't specify one way or another (unless I missed something...)

Thank you! I agree 100% with all the fixes and improvements you suggest! I just uploaded Goliath version 0.4 (2016-04-12) with the following changes:

• Fixed Wizards MR
• Fixed HC vs HC on melee table
• Changed ghoul from 10 Pts to 20 Pts
• Changed giant orcs from 1 Ht to 2 Hts, and from 2.5 Pts to 5 Pts
• Clarified when HTs need to be scored simultaneously or cumulatively. Under "3. Hits (HT)" in the Figures section, the new text reads: "If a unit consisting of figures with 1 HT each attacks a figure with multiple HTs, then they must score that many HTs simultaneously to remove it from play. Whereas, if a figure with multiple HTs attacks another figure with multiple HTs, then HTs only need to be scored cumulatively."
• Clarified meaning of AR+1. Under "4. Attack Rating (AR)" in the Figures section, the new text reads: "Under certain circumstances, like flanking, figures deserve a bonus to their attack capability; we denote this AR+1, which just means LI fights as MI, ..., and HC gets +1 on each die."
• A couple of cosmetic changes. For example, I added a pagebreak before the Changes section so that it's easy to print a copy without them. The PDF is only 8 pages without the Changes section.
• Added you, kesher , to the Acknowledgements section, to thank you for your valuable input!!!

The links for Goliath's Markdown plaintext and US letter-sized PDF are still valid.

Thanks again for taking the time to read this and offer improvements! I'd also value your input on my other project, Grognard, which attempts to be truer to the source material.

My pleasure--happy to help!

[derv]

Apr 12, 2016 5:47:44 GMT -6 krusader74 said:

Changed ghoul from 10 Pts to 20 Pts
Changed giant orcs from 1 Ht to 2 Hts, and from 2.5 Pts to 5 Pts

I don't really want to offer a dissenting vote here, but....

You are putting Ghouls (Wights & Zombies) in the same point category as Heroes, Rocs, and Lycanthropes. Consider that Ghouls can only paralyze for one turn. If I was going to bump a similar type up in point value, it would be Wraiths. Wights are the lowest ranking figure on the Fantasy Combat Table. I also tend to look at them in comparison to Elves who are a mere 4 points. I'd keep them at 10 points, myself.

I would not alter Hts for Giant Orcs either, since they are normal types and not found on the Fantasy Combat Table. If needed, alter their MR instead. You have already correctly given them a better AR of HI. You could give them the same DR, too. Again, Elves are worth 4 points comparatively and regular HI are only worth 2.5 points.

[kesher]

derv: That's a good point about giant orcs.

As for ghouls, I guess I'm looking at them here as listed in the Goliath rules, where there doesn't seem to be any equivalence with wights and zombies (who actually don't appear on the Troop Type list at all). The connection to Chainmail proper is weaker here, as Goliath doesn't use the Fantasy Combat table at all.

It is interesting to look at ghouls, and heroes together as they exist on the Troop Type list. It's hard for me (not having played this) to gist how the point-cost ideal of "fairness" would actually play out. It's true that heroes cost the same as ghouls (currently) do, while having four hits as opposed to one. However, any given hero will be at a fairly serious disadvantage in attack and defense unless mounted, though perhaps it would be balanced out by the fact that four ghouls at once would need to hit him to kill him. However, and I guess I'm not clear on this as written, would a single ghoul, while not being able to actually harm a hero, be able to paralyze him?

So, as I type this, a question occurs to me: krusader74, does Goliath actually benefit from point-costs? And, if so, does it make sense to largely crib them from Chainmail, when your rules don't contain some of the other, more complex, interactions that they do?

[krusader74]

derv and kesher : I think I have a compromise...

First, I'm going to do the Giant Orc "by the book," as derv suggests. And I am going to replace kesher 's Giant Orc with the Orog -- a humanoid with an Orc father and Ogre mother. I am also going to add the Ogrillon -- a humanoid with an Ogre father and Orc mother. This will create a gradual spectrum between Orcs and Ogres as follows (sorted by Pts):

Type	AR	DR	HT	MR	MV	Chg	Fly	Mss	SA	Pts
Orcs	MI	MI	1	+0	9"	12"	--	15"	2	2.0
Orcs, Giant	HI	MI	1	+0	9"	12"	--	15"	2	2.5
Orogs	HI	MI	2	+0	9"	12"	--	15"	2	5.0
Ogrillons	MI	MI	4	+1	9"	12"	--	15"	2	10.0
Ogres	MI	MI	6	+1	9"	12"	--	--	2(9)	15.0

Second, I'm going to do the Wight more-or-less "by the book," as derv suggests, lessening their Pts somewhat, from 10 to 7.5. But I am also going to differentiate the Wight from the Ghoul. The Ghoul will will be consistent with kesher 's Pts, but have 2 Hts and improved SAs. Specifically, while Wights paralyze for 1 turn, Ghouls paralyze until touched by an Elf, Hero or Super Hero, just like the Wraith. Furthermore, the Ghoul has a new SA -- any figure killed by a Ghoul becomes a Ghoul. This is consistent with the description of Ghouls in Vol 2/M&T. Since Ghouls now have 2 Hts, they can harm Heroes. All this justifies the Ghoul having higher Pts than the Wraith. Furthermore, I don't think there's any good reason to clump Wights and Ghouls together as Chainmail does: One comes from Anglo-Saxon lore, the other from Arabic lore. The Ghoul, as developed in the literature of CAS and HPL is much more terrifying than the Wight IMHO. I've also added Skeletons and Zombies, trying to be consistent with their description in Vol 2/M&T. Skeletons' Pts may seem high, but they never check morale. Zombies are like Skeletons, but they also turn any figures they kill into Zombies. All this leads to the following spectrum of undead (sorted by Pts):

Type	AR	DR	HT	MR	MV	Chg	Fly	Mss	SA	Pts
Skeletons	MI	MI	1	+4	6"	--	9"	--	2	5.0
Wights	LC	HC	1	+1	9"	--	--	--	2,7b	7.5
Wraiths	MC	MC	2	+2	18"	24"	36"	--	2,5,6,7a	10.0
Zombies	MI	MI	1	+4	6"	--	9"	--	2,12	15.0
Ghouls	LC	HC	2	+2	9"	--	--	--	2,7a,12	20.0

The new and altered Special Abilities are as follows:

Number	Ability
7a	Paralyze by touch until touched by Elf, Hero, Super Hero or Wizard
7b	Paralyze by touch for 1 turn
12	Figures killed by this type become this type!

kesher : WRT Pts, I think point costs can be as useful in mass combat as they are in man-to-man to balance opposing armies. While useful, they're still not a perfect metric. But I think if you look at the "spectra" of Orcs/Ogres and Undead as arranged in increasing order of Pts, you'd at least agree with the order they're in now, just maybe not on the exact price.


Anyway, I uploaded Goliath Version 0.6 (2016-04-14) with these changes: plaintext / PDF

[krusader74]

I just uploaded Grognard Version 0.3 (2016-04-14) with the following changes:

• Fixed HC vs HC on the Combat Table
• Added Wights to Fantasy Options section
• Added Catapults section
• Added Guns section

The links to Grognard remain the same:

• digest-sized PDF
• Markdown-formatted plain text

BTW, if you are interested in creating your own customized version of either Grognard or Goliath, I recommend that you

1. Install Pandoc
2. Familiarize yourself with Pandoc-flavored Markdown formatting
3. Then download and tweak the Markdown-formatted plain text version of these documents, and use Pandoc to reformat them as PDF, HTML, OpenOffice, MS Word, ePub, mobi, or whatever.

[derv]

Partly, I'm kind of motivated in seeing Goliath without a separate Fantasy Combat Table and would like to see a melding of it's intent into the rules with one common combat table. In that vein, it would be helpful to maintain the distinction between normal and fantastic types. For instance, in Chainmail the ghoul (wight, zombie, wraith) can only paralyze normal figures. In this I'm acknowledging my bias.

But, as kesher suggests, Goliath is it's own thing. So, I leave all decisions to the designer. I'm only making suggestions and my feelings won't be hurt if you take a different direction.

[krusader74]

I just uploaded Grognard Version 0.4 (2016-04-15). The links to Grognard remain the same:

• digest-sized PDF
• Markdown-formatted plain text

This version adds the rules for Canons. The actual mechanics for canon fire are pretty straightforward, but I feel this is one area where the original rules are a bit difficult to follow, if you've never seen it play out before. I've tried my best to clarify these rules and present them in a step by step fashion, along with a diagram showing the Deviation Dowel as well as all three Bounce/Range Dowels drawn to scale.

This pretty much finishes the mass combat chapter of the clone! The PDF is 27 pages, minus the TOC and change history pages.

One section I've intentionally omitted are the Siege rules. I think these ought to go in the man-to-man combat chapter (if I ever get around to doing that), because even the original text says: "At best, sieges are difficult to handle... it is suggested that they be used in combination with the rules for man-to-man combat."

If anyone can recommend some fitting public domain artwork, I could add that, but I don't feel it's necessary. Besides proofreading, I also need to tweak the \LaTex{} template and fonts to make it pretty. And stick a cover on it.

Any constructive feedback on this project would be helpful as I try to wind it down!

[18 Spears]

Apr 14, 2016 23:42:46 GMT -6 krusader74 said:

Any constructive feedback on this project would be helpful as I try to wind it down!

I hope you'uns find this constructive but I think you mean cannon and not canon. if that bugs you i'm sorry and wont do again.

[krusader74]

Apr 15, 2016 3:54:18 GMT -6 18 Spears said:

Apr 14, 2016 23:42:46 GMT -6 krusader74 said:

Any constructive feedback on this project would be helpful as I try to wind it down!

I hope you'uns find this constructive but I think you mean cannon and not canon. if that bugs you i'm sorry and wont do again.

Thanks for pointing out this error. I added you to the Acknowledgements section and just uploaded Grognard Version 0.5 (2016-04-16) with this and some other corrections. The links to Grognard remain the same:

• digest-sized PDF
• Markdown-formatted plain text

[Vile Traveller]

Oh. I was hoping to see rules for resolving flame wars between canonistas ...

[krusader74]

No real content changes in Grognard version 0.6 (PDF, plain text), but I couldn't resist adding the following epigraph to the Fantasy Options section...

A la fatigue, pour filer un câble, pour virer un cabestan, Jean Valjean valait quatre hommes.

At work, at paying out a cable or winding up a capstan, Jean Valjean was worth four men.

--Victor Hugo, Les Misérables (1862), Première partie, Livre deuxième, Chapitre VII, Le dedans du désespoir (French, English)

So Valjean is a Hero. If only Victor Hugo had instead written, «Jean Valjean valait huit hommes», then Valjean would have been a Super Hero. Here's an awesome artist's rendition of Valjean as a Super Hero:

[krusader74]

I just uploaded Grognard version 0.7 (PDF, plain text) with the following additions:

• Magic-Users that are less powerful than Wizards (Seer, Warlock, ...)
• Magic Weapons and Armor
• Man to man combat rules. The plain text of the tables is in a separate file. In the PDF, the table is in the back.
• FCT. The plain text of the table is in a separate file. In the PDF, the table is in the very back.

Things I'm considering adding to version 0.8 and beyond...

1. Siege rules
2. Graphic displaying different troop formations: Line, Column, Square.
3. Possibly some other illustrations (weapons/armor/siege equipment), as long as they're public domain images.
   
4. Introductory scenario, loosely based on The Battle of Brown Hills, including a map and possibly paper counters to use instead of figures
5. Possibly rewording some frequently used terms: rout --> panic, rally --> regroup, etc.
6. Actual play report. Or at least some examples showing how to apply complicated rules, such as the parry and counter strike in the M2M section.

As always, I look forward to hearing your suggestions and corrections!!!

---

On a technical note, I separated out the FCT and M2M tables, because they're wide, and I wanted to put them in landscape mode in a smaller font. Markdown and Pandoc are less-than-ideal for this sort of thing, so, for the time being anyway, I have 3 separate Markdown plain text source files, use Pandoc to convert each one to PDF, and then use PdfTk to glue them all together. Here's the script I used to automate this assembly process:

pandoc -s -V geometry:paperwidth=5.5in \
    -V geometry:paperheight=8.5in -V geometry:margin=.5in \
    -V fontsize:8pt -V geometry:landscape \
    -o FCT.pdf FCT.md

pandoc -s -V geometry:paperwidth=5.5in \
    -V geometry:paperheight=8.5in -V geometry:margin=.5in \
    -V fontsize:8pt -V geometry:landscape \
    -o H2H.pdf H2H.md

pandoc --toc --toc-depth=2 --smart -V geometry:paperwidth=5.5in \
    -V geometry:paperheight=8.5in -V geometry:margin=.5in \
    -o Grognard.pdf Grognard.md

pdftk Grognard.pdf H2H.pdf FCT.pdf cat output GrognardV7.pdf

[derv]

I think you continue to do an excellent job krusader74.

I guess my first question is, is your primary goal in writing this clone (Grognard) for your own personal use or are you attempting to clarify Chainmail for new players?

If it's for the benefit of new player's, then I think you have achieved your goal in many aspects. But, your section on Weather could use some further elaboration. I don't find the original table in Chainmail completely intuitive to new players, but I'm afraid it's a little easier to understand then what you have presented.

I like that you have included magic weapons and armor. You should also include their point values. It makes good sense that normal Elves cost 4 points and Heroes cost 20 points. Yet, an Elf armed with a magic sword would cost 14 points and a Hero armed with a magic sword would cost 30 points. Comparatively, normal men will generally cost from 1/2-5 points. At most a MH with crossbow will cost 7 points.

Things to consider that shed some light on these values are the added benefits to Elves. Normal Elves need only hit an Ogre (worth 15 points) 3 times to kill, compared to normal men needing 6 hits. If you add a magic sword, the Elf only needs one hit on a 7+ to kill an Ogre. Yet, a Hero needs a 9+ to kill an Ogre. Elves with magic swords are starting to sound like a real value here. The key thing to remember is that an Elf will still defend as a normal HF. That means the Ogre would get 6 blows (or count as 6 HF) against the Elf and only one hit is needed to kill him. The same thing goes for the Hero. An Elf with a magic sword can kill a Hero on a 9+, but the Hero will get 4 blows (or count as 4 men) against the Elf defending as HF (on the MtM table a sword needs 9+ against chain/shield).

BTW- I like all of your ideas you're considering for version 0.8