|
|
Post by Zakharan on Apr 24, 2017 17:20:00 GMT -6
I'm planning an OD&D campaign in the future, using Chainmail as the go-to combat system(s). It has its quirks, but it's quite flexible and granular, much moreso than our usual D&D combat. I think my players would dig it.
But I've encountered something that makes me curious: Melees must resolve before the next Turn begins (however many Rounds that actually takes). This isn't that strange to me, nor is it a big deal in Chainmail's native one-shot-one-kill system, but in OD&D I feel like it would seem strange if players aren't provided the ability to move away if a fight's going south. This doesn't seem like something Chainmail ever needed to account for, but I'd like to know if such an option exists (and if I'm not understanding it).
So I have some questions concerning movement options in Combat Rounds. Namely:
1.) What are the limitations on total Move distance per Turn? In Miscellaneous Melee Information (pg.16, entry 3), it says units within 3" of a melee can move 6" to join it (if they haven't yet exceeded half their base movement). Can this 6" movement to join allow a unit to exceed their 'normal' value (ex. Armored Foot can Move 6". If he goes only 3" during his Move, then got the 6" to join a nearby Melee, he traveled a total of 9"--3 inches over his typical value)?
2.) Related to the above, does a Melee already need to be ready to resolve before this 'join' option can be used? Or can it be used for unassailed figures to start a Melee? I'm unsure how the "within 3" of Melee" is quantified. Does it tie into the 3" range presented in the Man-to-Man section? Or does it mean that a Melee essentially has a 6" area (a 3" bubble that starts a Melee and the 3" beyond that can incite others to join in)?
3.) Can units, if they so choose, willingly fail Morale, or otherwise use one of the options on pg.15 to withdraw from a Melee after a Round (e.g. Back 1/2 Move)? If you can choose one of these options after a given Round, could you choose to withdraw even if you won said Round?
4.) Regarding Miscellaneous Melee Information entry 4, does "excess troops" only apply to those who were in a Melee that Turn? Or is it an opportunity for other figures on the board to inch around as well? Can this additional "one-half" movement exceed your typical Move rate across a Turn (similar to #1 above)? It also says "After the first Round"--does this mean you only get this chance to regroup once per Turn, or could you theoretically do this after each Round (as long as you never exceed 'one-half' across the totality of the Rounds)?
5.) If two units Melee and one fails Morale on the first Round (let's say they Rout), does the winning unit count as "excess troops" per the above? Are they be able to move an additional one-half distance, thus granting them a means to pursue without having had to Charge, or does the excess-troops rule only apply if the Melee is ongoing?
If, in the above examples, these additional movement options are 'free', does that mean that units engaged in combat can potentially cover much more ground than a unit that "just" moves?
Many thanks in advance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2017 18:58:45 GMT -6
Lemmee chew on this and get back to you.
"Feigned Retreat" was a viable tactic in the Middle Ages; Senlac Hill (Hastings) comes instantly to mind. It should be possible to do in the game, but I'd have to look at the rules to speak with certitude.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Apr 26, 2017 12:50:22 GMT -6
Below are my opinions on the Chainmail rules. I'm planning an OD&D campaign in the future, using Chainmail as the go-to combat system(s). It has its quirks, but it's quite flexible and granular, much moreso than our usual D&D combat. I think my players would dig it. But I've encountered something that makes me curious: Melees must resolve before the next Turn begins (however many Rounds that actually takes). This isn't that strange to me, nor is it a big deal in Chainmail's native one-shot-one-kill system, but in OD&D I feel like it would seem strange if players aren't provided the ability to move away if a fight's going south. For all characters and monsters above 1st level, use hit points and roll one die for each hit. Do it for all combatants if you don't mind the extra work, but in general single hit die combatants are killed with one hit anyway, so you can just call a hit a kill in those cases. In Chainmail, you're the army's commander. You stand on a hill at the back and send out orders; your units obey. When you tell them, "go over there and fight that enemy unit," that's what they do. You don't get to micromanage the melee; you can't control those men while they're bashing on each other. In D&D, you're one combatant. You get to choose your own actions. A caller might direct the fight, but you always have the right to override the caller's decisions and do whatever you want. If you want to use Chainmail rules for D&D combat, you have to make allowances for the individuality and freedom of each player. The Chainmail rules don't do this. You'll have to go beyond those rules. The 6″ value is absolute. Strictly according to the rules, a unit of Armored Foot who have already moved no more than 3″ and are within 3″ of the melee can move up to 6″ to join the melee. This isn't part of its "normal movement," this is extra movement. It just means the unit is hustling. You can't start a melee with this movement; you can only join one. Measure the closest figure of that unit to the closest figure of the enemy unit that's already in melee. If they're within 3″, the farther unit may move up to 6″ to engage the enemy—but only to engage the enemy. There is no provision for this in the rules, but as Gronan points out, there's no reason why an army commander can't order such a move purposely. I would rule that a player would have to write out this order before the melee begins, keeping it secret from the enemy player. Then when the time came and post-melee morale was rolled, the player would perform either the orders or the roll result—whichever was worse. (Troops aren't going to willingly move back in good order when the melee result would be that they rout or surrender.) This might require the presence of a referee who rolls all post-melee morale in secret, otherwise your opponent will know that you're feigning to fall back for some reason. If you're doing this in D&D, the DM is the referee. During a melee, only those figures in physical contact with an enemy figure (or those with long weapons who can reach beyond their own positions) fight, even if there are more figures in the unit. After a round of melee you may move any figures in the fighting units up to half their normal movement so they can come into contact with an enemy figure and thus join the melee. Units not in the melee don't get to move. This is bonus movement, as above. I'm not sure if you can do this more than once a turn. It seems to make sense that figures could move in after each round to close gaps left by lost figures. I think it's only if melee is ongoing, otherwise the rule wouldn't specify that this movement is allowed for flanks and rear flanks. The front line can't follow but the flanks can? Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Apr 27, 2017 19:36:12 GMT -6
I'm planning an OD&D campaign in the future, using Chainmail as the go-to combat system(s). It has its quirks, but it's quite flexible and granular, much moreso than our usual D&D combat. I think my players would dig it. But I've encountered something that makes me curious: Melees must resolve before the next Turn begins (however many Rounds that actually takes). This isn't that strange to me, nor is it a big deal in Chainmail's native one-shot-one-kill system, but in OD&D I feel like it would seem strange if players aren't provided the ability to move away if a fight's going south. This doesn't seem like something Chainmail ever needed to account for, but I'd like to know if such an option exists (and if I'm not understanding it). So I have some questions concerning movement options in Combat Rounds. Namely: ..... 3.) Can units, if they so choose, willingly fail Morale, or otherwise use one of the options on pg.15 to withdraw from a Melee after a Round (e.g. Back 1/2 Move)? If you can choose one of these options after a given Round, could you choose to withdraw even if you won said Round? .... In the interests of saving time, I'm cutting and pasting from a much longer and more detailed conversation I had last year, some information that I hope will be helpful " But the idea of withdrawal in OD&D is worth considering further. In CM there is the idea of archers in a mixed unit "refusing" battle. In CM (3rd edition) the single use of the term withdraw is on the Fantasy Combat table, " May withdraw from combat if opponent dice score is NO EFFECT" In U&WA page 27, damage to a flying combatant reduces their chances to withdraw, starting with a 100% chance if only the rider is damaged. The rules for command control of troops during battles fought when boarding ships, has "Personnel engaged in melee will only respond to commands when a roll of 1-4 is made (on a six-sided die). This will be checked each turn. Therefor, orders for withdrawal, for example, can be given for three turns later which allows three turns for the personnel to respond." U&WA page 32 In the D&D draft "Dalluhn" manuscript the fighting capabilities rule has :"The numbers (Table 4) indicate the player's ability to handle more than one opponent in combat on an equal basis. For example, a Veteran could take on any ordinary non-veteran man and have a +1 advantage 0" We could take that to indicate that a character can prevent infiltration of normal opponents of up to their fighting capability number. When the FC is exceeded the opponent's movement couldn't be hindered, because it is more opponents than they can "handle". From these and a few other meager pickings I'll attempt to extrapolate: Entering Melee To initiate a melee, the combatants must be within 1". However, any figure can enter a pre-existing melee occurring within 3" (30 feet in the underworld) provided that no more than 1/2 their movement rate was required that Turn to place them within Melee Range, and they are not otherwise prevented from engaging. Figures within 1" engaged in Melee operate in melee rounds. Figures outside of an opponent's Melee Range or otherwise protected from Melee, continue to operate according to the rules of normal movement. Withdrawal To withdraw is to intentionally leave a melee in a retrograde direction away from opponents. Figures within the Melee Range of opponents may only withdraw under very specific circumstances. Figures within an opponent's 3" Melee Range may refuse combat by moving backward 3" behind supporting figures when those in front can effectively prevent infiltration. A common case in point would be fighters standing abreast in a corridor, allowing a Magic-user behind them to withdraw. (CM Missile troop rule) If all attacks rolled against a figure in any given round prove unsuccessful, they may withdraw if a clear path exists. (CM FCT) Normal types will always attack other normal-types in preference to a fantastic/heroic-type. Therefore, an un-engaged fantastic/heroic type has freedom to withdraw from a melee between normal-types. (CM) Infiltratation Passing by individual opponents or beyond their melee range is permitted only when the enemies Fighting Capability is overwhelmed. That is, any figure or group facing more opponents than their Fighting Capability permits them to handle, can not prevent infiltration. An infiltrating figure is considered to be in a normal movement phase and subject to the usual movement rules. (Dalluhn/BTPbD extrapolation) Flight Any deliberate or forced attempt to leave a melee other than Withdrawal or Infiltration will be considered an act of flight. Fleeing from melee incurs an automatic rear attack from any opponent able to deliver the blow. (CM) |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Apr 28, 2017 19:05:49 GMT -6
First, I'll answer your questions as if you were asking about Chainmail alone.
1. No, a unit cannot exceed it's normal move unless charging. The 6" allows for maneuver (change of facing). The 3" is the max distance that a unit can be drawn in.
2. I allow units to be drawn in after resolving the first round of melee, if no casualties occur.
3. Not traditionally. Melee must be resolved. A turn is considered to consist of a 1 minute exchange. It will not generally go many rounds.
4. This is referring to excess troops not directly engaged that are part of a unit. Theoretically you could continue to do this if you have excess troops not engaged. But, that generally means you have sustained casualties and a post melee morale check would be made.
5. No. They may continue their charge move, if they charged. This might or might not bring them back into contact.
Onto the crux of the matter, using CM with D&D. My simplest answer to your query, and one that D&D seems to have adopted, is to limit the number of rounds in a turn. Allow so many exchanges, then start a new turn. If one side desires to withdrawal after a set number of rounds, allow a free strike by the one pursuing. Defensive withdrawal at 1/2 movement and a retreat with back to enemy at full movement, categorize unit at next lower class or, if using M2M, no shield benefit and +1 to hit.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Apr 30, 2017 6:07:48 GMT -6
In terms of CM: 1. Yes. My view is that the 6" move to join a nearby melee is how figures waiting in support can actually provide combat support when it matters. 2. Yes. My view is that a melee has to exist before anyone can join it. Imagine you have positioned unit A in close support of B. My unit X charges into your B. Without the joining rule, we would resolve the combat between B and X while A stands idly by. With this rule A is allowed to join the melee, and then we resolve the combat between your A+B and my X. 3. An interesting one. There is the notion of (archers) refusing combat, and also the possibility of withdrawing from fantasy combat, but I don't recall anything about voluntarily failing a morale check during normal combat. Holmes' interpretation for D&D (p21) appears to follow the FCT model in that during a melee the player options appear to be: conquer, withdraw, surrender, or die. 4. This last bullet point was introduced later, in CM 3rd Ed (1975). Yes, but not quite as you phrased it. My view is that this applies only to figures "involved" in this current melee; it allows a larger unit to "envelop" a smaller one as the current melee is resolved. Troop movements within other melees around the board are resolved independently. This raises the question of whether one should resolve three melees on the board simultaneously, or one at a time. I've always done it one at a time. 5. No. My view is that the envelopment rule is only applicable during a melee; pursuit is handled differently. In terms of running a D&D game using the CM rules, I have spent a couple of years experimenting with exactly this approach. It has been great fun to try, if for no other reason than to see how it flies. Not to mention it has been educational. From my experience, I think you may find that acknowledging CM clears up a bunch of otherwise enigmatic remarks in the 3LBBs, which is a neat side effect. The main issues I think you may need to address are: * How to handle fantasy vs. normal combat? Seems to me that the vast majority of OD&D play treats almost all combat as a less-lethal variant of CM's fantastic combat using the alternative combat matrices (where hits deal damage rather than kills). Why not? That's what the 3LBBs advise, and it's great fun. On the other hand the 2d6 combat tables can be refreshing to try out too. * Number of melee ROUNDS per TURN will be an important consideration. CM is explicit that the melee segment of the turn is decisive, no matter how many rounds are required. On the other hand, D&D players (generally?) tend to anticipate a "player turn" for each round of combat... My experience of testing it out in D&D games has led me to conclude that Swords & Spells (p17) has a pretty neat balance in the middle; it allows up to three melee rounds per turn, depending on how far a figure has to move before joining combat. The significant upshot of this is that: the melee segment of the turn need not be decisive in D&D. If it's not decisive, a melee combat can then last across several turns, which gives players several turns to issue orders during a melee combat, which seems a nice fit for D&D. Using the S&S rule, I've found combats with low level types usually last 2 or 3, occasionally 4 turns. This is about the "right" granularity for me. * Whether to stick exactly to the CM turn sequence. Simultaneous "movement" (in the move segment) is, IMHO, a pretty good fit for D&D. The sticking point will be whether missile fire should always be resolved before melee. Sometimes that just won't feel right in D&D (particularly if you allow melee combat to continue from one TURN to the next--perhaps figures already engaged in melee should strike before arrows fired from 100 yards off hit?). * Firing missiles. In addition to the turn sequence thing, you'll need to decide whether a bunch of special abilities are or are not "missiles" (e.g., spells, turning undead, a medusa's gaze attack, etc). If you allow melee to continue from one TURN to the next (which CM doesn't) you'll also have to rule on whether missiles (including spells) can be fired from, or into, melee. CM doesn't need to explicitly forbid firing into melee, because the turn sequence prevents it from happening. But allowing melee to run across turns means some players may have a chance to throw spells and missiles into a melee. Also... if you rule that turning undead and the medusa's gaze attacks are missiles, you might need to figure out which of these types of things can be fired into melee. The most important thing is to enjoy it. Have fun  |
|
