|
|
Post by James Richardson on Oct 14, 2016 14:20:17 GMT -6
Can anyone answer these questions I have about the man-to-man melee rules?
1) If either combatant can strike two or three blows per round (as specified in Melee Table), do these strikes happen consecutively?
2) Can only the defender parry? Even if the attacker has a weapon four or more classes lower than the defender, can he still not parry in any round?
3) If the defender chooses to parry, then (apart from any counter blow) can he strike any more blows? For example, if the defender's weapon is four classes lower than the attacker's (so rules in 4c apply), if the defender chooses to parry, the attacker strikes the first blow of the round (subtracting 2), then the defender (assuming he's still alive) makes his counter blow. Then, does the round end, meaning that the defender has struck a total of one blow that round? Or, after making his counter blow, does the defender then get one more blow, bringing his total to the two blows specified in Melee Table? Or, is the counter blow considered part of the parry, meaning that the defender then gets two additional blows (bringing his total blows to three)?
4) In section 4d, does the defender get a counter blow or not? Section 4b explicitly says that in that situation, the defender gets no counter blow. Section 4c explicitly says that in that situation, the defender does get a counter blow, but section 4d only specifies what happens if the parry is unsuccessful, not whether or not the defender gets a counter blow if the parry is successful. Presumably if the defender gets a counter blow in 4c, then he would get one in 4d as well?
5) Can the defender parry in the first round; or only in subsequent rounds? For example, if 4c applied to the current melee, in the first round, the attacker would ordinarily strike the first blow. However, presumably the defender wouldn't be able to apply 4c in the first round and choose to give the first blow instead? Therefore, by extension, the defender shouldn't be able to apply 4c and choose to parry the attacker's blow either?
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on Oct 14, 2016 16:20:41 GMT -6
1. Yes
2. Yes, for the first round. The role of attacker and defender may change for the second round and after.
Keep in mind "any weapon 2 or more classes higher than the attacker the ability to parry does not exist."
3-5. Take the rules as written literally.
One caveat for 4d, it does not repeat the rule stated in 4c that says, "If the parry is successful, the defender gets one counter blow." So, a weapon 8 or more classes lower than the attacker could get the first blow, parry with the second blow, and if the parry is successful, counter with a third blow.
5. In situation 4c. the defender has two blows. He can strike or parry with the first. Then the attacker will strike. Then the defender may get his second blow if he's not dead or his weapon broken.
Remember that one hit kills in most Chainmail man-to-man combats.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Richardson on Oct 17, 2016 10:25:59 GMT -6
Sorry for not replying sooner. I wanted to get a chance to work through a few example scenarios based on your suggested rules before replying. Can only the defender parry? Yes, for the first round. So, in the 1st round, only the defender can parry? Why do you say the attacker cannot parry in the 1st round? The role of attacker and defender may change for the second round and after. Are you saying that (for the 2nd round and thereafter) the attacker becomes (what section 4 refers to as) the defender if he has a weapon 2 or more classes lower than his opponent? So, a weapon 8 or more classes lower than the attacker could get the first blow, parry with the second blow, and if the parry is successful, counter with a third blow. So, in this case, the defender would effectively strike a total of 2 blows, and the attacker would strike a total of 1 blow? |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Oct 17, 2016 15:56:53 GMT -6
Sorry for not replying sooner. I wanted to get a chance to work through a few example scenarios based on your suggested rules before replying. Yes, for the first round. So, in the 1st round, only the defender can parry? Why do you say the attacker cannot parry in the 1st round? We may be talking semantics here. It would probably be easier if you gave me some actual examples that we could work through. The roles of "attacker" and "defender" might become more clear. Essentially, the "attacker" is attempting to land a killing blow and the "defender" can either parry or counter the attempt. Getting the first blow is a tremendous advantage in a one hit kills game. The role of attacker and defender may change for the second round and after. Are you saying that (for the 2nd round and thereafter) the attacker becomes (what section 4 refers to as) the defender if he has a weapon 2 or more classes lower than his opponent? yes. So, a weapon 8 or more classes lower than the attacker could get the first blow, parry with the second blow, and if the parry is successful, counter with a third blow. So, in this case, the defender would effectively strike a total of 2 blows, and the attacker would strike a total of 1 blow? yes, with the caveat that the defender "could" strike two blows, not "would". A parry counts as a blow, for a total of three. But, he may break his weapon and become defenseless until he draws another, thus losing the ability to counter. |
|
|
|
Post by James Richardson on Oct 19, 2016 15:16:27 GMT -6
I've put together a small spreadsheet (exported as a PDF) that denotes who strikes which blows, and who parries whom, in each round for every combination of weapons. I think it would be really good if you could have a look at it. The PDF is really straightforward to read and understand, I promise!
But, is it OK to make it publicly available, seeing as it is effectively reproducing some of the Chainmail rules? If it is, then I'll put it somewhere like Dropbox.
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on Oct 19, 2016 15:57:37 GMT -6
I would think it would be okay from what you're describing. It doesn't sound like you are reproducing the tables verbatim or large chunks of text. But, I'll let Finarvyn answer for that. Give him a pm if he doesn't catch this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by James Richardson on Oct 21, 2016 13:35:29 GMT -6
Finarvyn says it'll probably be OK, and if we decide it isn't, we can just delete the link. I've never shared anything publicly with Dropbox before, so, here goes: www.dropbox.com/sh/ko9417gg4wn2d03/AACZoyU4nlvRCImfi6ex0NJBa?dl=0Do you see the PDF in there? I also included the original spreadsheet file. It shouldn't be too difficult to decipher what the spreadsheet is showing, but, I'll explain it anyway. So, the top half is where the attacker's weapon is n classes higher than the defender's, and the bottom half is where the defender's weapon is n classes higher than the attacker's. Each half consists of 12 pairs of columns - two for each possible difference in classes between the attacker's and defender's weapons. The column on the left is what happens when neither opponent parries, and the column on the right, enclosed in a box, is what happens if one of the opponents decides to parry. 'A' means that the attacker strikes a blow, and 'D' means that the defender strikes a blow. -1 or -2 means that that number is deducted from the strike. Each pair of columns covers the 1st round of up to four blows, and the 2nd round and thereafter of up to four blows. Of course, this spreadsheet assumes both opponents are non-mounted, fighting on level ground, facing each other head-on, and that neither opponent dies. Just before I uploaded it, I checked it against the rules again, and made some corrections, so, it may well still contain mistakes, as well as reflect any misinterpretations of the rules I have. Let me know whether this spreadsheet reflects the rules as you understand them, or tell me where you use different rules. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Oct 22, 2016 20:27:42 GMT -6
I'll take a look at your spreadsheet James.
I'll say upfront that I'm uncertain that you will be able to capture the intent of the rules by codifying it into a table. Chainmail's man to man system does involve some adjudication.
The primary question that needs to be answered is, who is the attacker? You have to think about this in light of how a miniature game would unfold. Melee occurs when two figures are within melee range (3"). So, the judge might consider the attacker to be the one that first moved their figure into melee range (Move/Counter Move). If you are using the Simultaneous Move System, then the judge must rely on players intent and moving into melee will often involve a charge. We are told charging pikes, spears, and lances always get the first blow, despite weapon class. If, by chance, both players are charging and of the same weapon class, you may have to dice for initiative.
I will give one example that assumes weapons that have four classes difference- the dagger and battle axe. We'll look at it with each weapon being the attacker.
A. Dagger attacks
1st round: Dagger will get first blow, battle ax will counter, dagger will get 2nd blow.
2nd round: Dagger gets first blow as attacker. Battle ax cannot parry as defender. Battle axe counters, dagger gets 2nd blow. Continue as is for following rounds.
B. Battle Axe attacks
1st round: Battle axe should get first blow. But, dagger can elect to get first blow or parry ax, giving it -2 to attack roll. If dagger takes first blow, ax will counter (battle axe cannot parry), dagger gets 2nd blow. If dagger parries, dagger may get a 2nd blow or not.
2nd round: If dagger struck first blow in round one, he is now the attacker. He gets first blow and does not parry. He will get a 2nd blow after axes counter blow. Repeat for following rounds.
If dagger parried in first round, repeat as round one until he takes first blow. Once he takes first blow, he becomes the attacker.
This is how I interpret the rules. I hope this helps. Maybe @gronanofsimmerya will chime in if he does it different or has some insights to share.
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on Oct 23, 2016 13:01:38 GMT -6
I've gone over your chart. I think you've captured the letter in most instances. There may be a couple of errors- like defenders weapon is higher by 4 round 1 (see illustration above). It is not clear how you determine who the attacker is, either, and this is essential. Neither does it reflect the choices that can occur in either round, as I illustrated above. These choices can effect the following rounds.
Have you had a chance to review what I posted above? Does it make sense or do you have other questions?
|
|
|
|
Post by James Richardson on Oct 24, 2016 9:03:25 GMT -6
Yep, I have been reviewing what you said. Sorry it takes so long. It's quite complicated, so, it takes me a while to think everything through. What you say makes sense, although, I have some further questions. I'll say upfront that I'm uncertain that you will be able to capture the intent of the rules by codifying it into a table. Chainmail's man to man system does involve some adjudication. I'm only trying to codify: - The rules for who strikes the first blow in the 1st round, and in the 2nd round and thereafter
- Section 4
- The Melee Table section
The primary question that needs to be answered is, who is the attacker? With the subset of the rules that I'm asking about, we can assume that the attacker has already been identified. How one would determine which opponent is the attacker in situations where it's not clear, I think, is a separate matter. A. Dagger attacks1st round: Dagger will get first blow, battle ax will counter, dagger will get 2nd blow. As the defender has a weapon that is 4 classes higher than the attacker, wouldn't the defender (battle axe) get first blow in the 1st round? Or are you saying that the defender only strikes the first blow if his weapon is precisely two classes higher - no more, no less? B. Battle Axe attacks1st round: Battle axe should get first blow. But, dagger can elect to get first blow or parry ax, giving it -2 to attack roll. If dagger takes first blow, ax will counter (battle axe cannot parry), dagger gets 2nd blow. If dagger parries, dagger may get a 2nd blow or not. It looks like my interpretation of what a counter blow is is very different from yours. In this example, I would say dagger gets first blow and second blow, and then battle axe gets third blow. So, no blows are termed "counter blow". If dagger decides to parry, then battle axe gets first blow (-2), and then dagger gets the second blow, and the round ends, and this second blow is termed the "counter blow". The reason I interpret it this way is that in the rules the term "counter blow" is only ever used when talking about parrying. Nothing states that each opponent takes turns to strike, but also nothing states that if an opponent can make two or three strikes that they are all struck consecutively. Either interpretation would seem reasonable to me, but only one will be the intended interpretation, and that is why I originally asked whether an opponent's strikes were taken consecutively. What about if two-handed sword attacks dagger? A two-handed sword is 8 classes higher than a dagger, so, dagger should get three blows. So, if dagger strikes first blow, two-handed sword then strikes a counter blow, then dagger strikes second blow, does two-handed sword then get a second counter blow, and then dagger strikes third blow; or does dagger strike third blow immediately after striking the second blow? Also, are you saying that 4c and 4d override the rule further up the page about who strikes the first blow in the 1st round? The more I think about it, the more it makes sense. So, in this instance, because the dagger is that much shorter and lighter than a battle axe, the defender (armed with dagger) can actually get the first strike in, presumably while the attacker is still preparing to strike his first blow. I will return to my spreadsheet and see if I can amend it accordingly. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Oct 24, 2016 19:35:56 GMT -6
A. Dagger attacks1st round: Dagger will get first blow, battle ax will counter, dagger will get 2nd blow. As the defender has a weapon that is 4 classes higher than the attacker, wouldn't the defender (battle axe) get first blow in the 1st round? Or are you saying that the defender only strikes the first blow if his weapon is precisely two classes higher - no more, no less? You are touching on an area that I feel requires judgement. The rule as written is saying "precisely" two classes higher. But, I would be willing to use 2-3 classes higher. We are dealing with the idea of both heft and length. So, in the case of the dagger, a mace would get the first blow, but not the battle axe. Rule 4c applies. B. Battle Axe attacks1st round: Battle axe should get first blow. But, dagger can elect to get first blow or parry ax, giving it -2 to attack roll. If dagger takes first blow, ax will counter (battle axe cannot parry), dagger gets 2nd blow. If dagger parries, dagger may get a 2nd blow or not. It looks like my interpretation of what a counter blow is is very different from yours. In this example, I would say dagger gets first blow and second blow, and then battle axe gets third blow. So, no blows are termed "counter blow". If dagger decides to parry, then battle axe gets first blow (-2), and then dagger gets the second blow, and the round ends, and this second blow is termed the "counter blow". The reason I interpret it this way is that in the rules the term "counter blow" is only ever used when talking about parrying. Nothing states that each opponent takes turns to strike, but also nothing states that if an opponent can make two or three strikes that they are all struck consecutively. Either interpretation would seem reasonable to me, but only one will be the intended interpretation, and that is why I originally asked whether an opponent's strikes were taken consecutively. So, let's consider the opening description for melee: "When two figures are within melee range, one or several blows will be struck. The order of striking depends upon several factors. The man striking the first blow receives a return blow only if he fails to kill his opponent." This tells us there will be an exchange of blows- the first blow and a return blow (counter blow). This is always the case, unless there is a parry. But, a parry counts as a blow. This is consistent with what is described in 4c and 4d. Imagine two men charging into melee, both swinging or plunging their weapons. Both intent on landing a killing blow. Whose weapon will strike first (within moments of each other)? This is then followed by the lighter weapons additional blows. There's nothing written in stone that you have to do it this way. It's up to your judgement. I believe this is the intent of the rules, though. In the first round the two handed sword would get the first blow if charging. Dagger would then immediately counter with three blows. Otherwise, dagger first, two handed sword counters, dagger strikes it's remaining two blows. You've got it. |
|
|
|
Post by James Richardson on Oct 25, 2016 4:53:18 GMT -6
The rule as written is saying "precisely" two classes higher. But, I would be willing to use 2-3 classes higher. But, in the Melee Table section, where it talks about "a weapon four classes lower" and "a weapon eight classes lower", do you interpret that to mean "a weapon four to seven classes lower" and "a weapon eight or more classes lower"? So, let's consider the opening description for melee: "When two figures are within melee range, one or several blows will be struck. The order of striking depends upon several factors. The man striking the first blow receives a return blow only if he fails to kill his opponent." This tells us there will be an exchange of blows- the first blow and a return blow (counter blow). To me that last sentence is mainly trying to convey the point that once either opponent is killed, the round and the melee ends. I wouldn't say it's also trying to convey that the other opponent always strikes a return blow after the first blow, no matter how many blows his opponent has. I think what Gygax was doing was just using the simple case where each opponent has one blow, and using that to convey the point about what happens when one opponent is killed, as only later on does he introduce the concept of weapon classes and multiple blows. It seems to me that the order of blows where one opponent has two or three blows is not actually specified. Which means you could be absolutely right. Anyway, it's been very useful to get someone else's take on these rules. I'm still undecided on many things, but, I'll certainly bear in mind everything you've said. Thank you!  |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Oct 25, 2016 15:14:59 GMT -6
The rule as written is saying "precisely" two classes higher. But, I would be willing to use 2-3 classes higher. But, in the Melee Table section, where it talks about "a weapon four classes lower" and "a weapon eight classes lower", do you interpret that to mean "a weapon four to seven classes lower" and "a weapon eight or more classes lower"? yes. So, let's consider the opening description for melee: "When two figures are within melee range, one or several blows will be struck. The order of striking depends upon several factors. The man striking the first blow receives a return blow only if he fails to kill his opponent." This tells us there will be an exchange of blows- the first blow and a return blow (counter blow). To me that last sentence is mainly trying to convey the point that once either opponent is killed, the round and the melee ends. I wouldn't say it's also trying to convey that the other opponent always strikes a return blow after the first blow, no matter how many blows his opponent has. I think what Gygax was doing was just using the simple case where each opponent has one blow, and using that to convey the point about what happens when one opponent is killed, as only later on does he introduce the concept of weapon classes and multiple blows. Not exactly. Gygax is explicitly saying that the man-to-man system involves an exchange of blows and if a figure is killed by a blow, he does not get a return blow. Then, yes, the melee ends. The system does build on the basic concept of two men with equal characteristics. Let's say you have two men who are both armed with swords. The attacker is attempting to land a telling blow. The defender has the option of parrying the blow or countering with his own blow. He cannot do both. I have presented to you how I use the man-to-man rules as I think they were intended. But, as I said, some things are open to judgement. For instance, in the case of 4d where the defender does not parry, I would not argue against a reading of the rules that allowed the defender two blows before the attacker strikes. This is the opposite of what I do, but I think it's an acceptable interpretation. It would have more significance in the second round, in most cases. Part of the reason I do not appreciate this approach is because I feel it disincentivises using the parry. As I said before, getting the first blow is an advantage. Getting two blows prior to a counter blow seems overly advantageous. Why would you parry? If you parry, you are still taking a chance of being struck, while lowering your probability of landing a killing blow, and you may not get your return blow in as a result. If you allow 1st blow, counter blow, followed by two more blows, it makes the parry more relevant. You would still have 1st blow with an opponents counter blow, that can be parried, followed by a possible return blow, or not parried and followed by two return blows. Anyway, let us know if you run any games using the man-to-man rules and how it turns out. That's usually the best way to work out some of these questions. |
|
|
|
Post by harlandski on Nov 25, 2017 14:11:25 GMT -6
I'll take a look at your spreadsheet James. I'll say upfront that I'm uncertain that you will be able to capture the intent of the rules by codifying it into a table. Chainmail's man to man system does involve some adjudication. The primary question that needs to be answered is, who is the attacker? You have to think about this in light of how a miniature game would unfold. Melee occurs when two figures are within melee range (3"). So, the judge might consider the attacker to be the one that first moved their figure into melee range (Move/Counter Move). If you are using the Simultaneous Move System, then the judge must rely on players intent and moving into melee will often involve a charge. We are told charging pikes, spears, and lances always get the first blow, despite weapon class. If, by chance, both players are charging and of the same weapon class, you may have to dice for initiative. I will give one example that assumes weapons that have four classes difference- the dagger and battle axe. We'll look at it with each weapon being the attacker. A. Dagger attacks1st round: Dagger will get first blow, battle ax will counter, dagger will get 2nd blow. 2nd round: Dagger gets first blow as attacker. Battle ax cannot parry as defender. Battle axe counters, dagger gets 2nd blow. Continue as is for following rounds. B. Battle Axe attacks1st round: Battle axe should get first blow. But, dagger can elect to get first blow or parry ax, giving it -2 to attack roll. If dagger takes first blow, ax will counter (battle axe cannot parry), dagger gets 2nd blow. If dagger parries, dagger may get a 2nd blow or not. 2nd round: If dagger struck first blow in round one, he is now the attacker. He gets first blow and does not parry. He will get a 2nd blow after axes counter blow. Repeat for following rounds. If dagger parried in first round, repeat as round one until he takes first blow. Once he takes first blow, he becomes the attacker. This is how I interpret the rules. I hope this helps. Maybe @gronanofsimmerya will chime in if he does it different or has some insights to share. Extending your example up a step - dagger versus two-handed sword. In the case of the dagger being the attacker, does the man with the dagger attack twice before the one with the two handed sword, and get his third attack after (if he survives)? This is not explicit in the rules, but as the parry example 4d gives the defender the option of two attacks, it would suggest a similar attacker should get (at least) two attacks before the man with the longer heavier weapon gets to respond. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Nov 25, 2017 15:13:39 GMT -6
My answer and my reasoning can be found in the final passage of the prior post to yours. As I said, I would not be against a different reading of the rules. But, I would encourage a person to play it both ways and see if my point seems accurate. Would it seem reasonable to parry when you can strike two blows immediately? Does this lead to an expectation to be able to parry with your third blow?
Imagine a choice where you know there will be a counter to your first blow, regardless. The choice is to parry or to raise the probability of a kill with a return blow (or two) at the end. Whether to strike twice before a counter blow is not really a choice to me. It's even less of a choice if you allow a parry with the third blow.
IMO, if he's the attacker*, no parry. In these cases, I would allow the dagger to remain the defender if he had parried in the previous round and intends to parry again. Once he goes on the attack and does not parry, he becomes the attacker.
I always build on the basic blow/ counter concept. It avoids many a snags.
edit: an approach that some may take is to look at the tables and the situations where there are multiple blows as sheerly a means of raising the probabilities of a hit within the limit of a 2d6 table. If this is the case, you would tend to favor two blows (maybe even all three) before an opponents counter. I personally consider probabilities, but do not look at it that way solely. If you include the fantasy creatures, they can add a whole new spin of complexity to all of this c:
|
|
