FAQ: What scale (1:20 or 1:1) is the Fantasy Supplement?

[sirjaguar]

This sticky thread will serve as an answer to the frequently asked question, what scale/ratio of figures is assumed in the Fantasy Supplement?

Below I've merged two threads that discuss this and include links back to early discussions and sources.

--- Zenopus

1: Heroes, super heroes and man equivalents (original thread title)

In Chainmail, heroes are explained as having the fighting ability of four figures. So this means they fight with the ability of 80 men, considering that four Chainmail non-fantasy figures represent 20 men (unless operating man-to-man mode (and maybe even then) or using scales smaller than 30mm figures). And a superhero would fight like 160 men!

One issue with this is that a hero's fighting ability would change depending on the scale being used -- if you were using 15mm minis then you hero is only worth 40 men. I suppose within the context of a given battle and a given scale, the important thing is just that the hero is 4x stronger than a "normal" figure.

I bring this up because in discussions of Original D&D I often see comments that a hero fights like 4 men. Indeed, a 4th-level fighter is called a Hero, and has 4 HD. But per Chainmail, a hero should fight like either 80 or 40 men -- waaaaayyyy tougher than 4 men in either case. So then a 4th-level character should really have 40 or 80 HD if there were any consistency between Chainmail systems and ODD.

Someone has probably raised this point before but my searches could not find it. Is this something that has always been hand-waved over, or is there a good rationale behind it?

[Finarvyn]

Yeah, this topic comes up every once in a while on various message boards. My assumption is that it was just hand-waved over and folks didn't worry about the different scales of battle. Gronan could probably give more info on this.

[Zakharan]

I've heard that the Fantasy section of Chainmail was written for a 1:1 scale, despite use of the "Foot/Horse" designations from the 1:20 rules. I have little doubt it was handwaved over, but in the context of D&D it almost certainly means 1:1 as well. This would throw a spanner in the works if you messed around with scale.

[delta]

Gygax was (unusually) consistent over the years in saying that the Chainmail Fantasy Supplement was set at man-to-man scale, that is, 1 figure = 1 man. I've previously collected quotes from Gygax in this regard on my blog, which I'll repost here for convenience. See here for my original blog post.

In Original D&D, Vol-3, under "Land Combat" (1974):

The basic system is that from CHAINMAIL, with one figure representing one man or creature.

Strategic Review #2, p. 3 (1975):

CHAINMAIL is primarily a system for 1:20 combat, although it provides a basic understanding for man-to-man fighting also. The "Man-To-Man" and "Fantasy Supplement" sections of Chainmail provide systems for table-top actions of small size.

Swords & Spells Introduction, p. 1 (1976):

The FANTASY SUPPLEMENT written for CHAINMAIL assumed a man-for-man situation.

Advertising copy for Swords & Spells in The Dragon #3, p. 24, which seems to highlight the difference from Chainmail as a selling point (1976):

S&S is structured to allow the use of 1:10 scale figures and 1:1 scale figures representing high-level fighters, magic-users, and clerics -- whether player characters or not -- in the same engagement!

The Dragon #15 article, "D&D Ground and Spell Area Scale" (June 1978):

The "Fantasy Supplement" was an outgrowth of the medieval rules and the "Man-to-Man Combat" (1 figure to 1 actual combatant) section I also devised for conducting battles of several different campaigns I ran for the LGTSA...

ENWorld Q&A with RFisher (2005):

RFisher: A couple of Chainmail questions: When the combat tables say "1 die per man", do they mean 1 die per man (20 dice per figure) or 1 die per figure (1 die per 20 men)? (I've known people to interpret it both ways.)

Gygax: Read "man" as "figure" and you have it. One die is just that...

RFisher: Under Heroes, does "They have the fighting ability of four figures" mean that they are equivalent to 4 men or 80 men?

Gygax: Heroes are used only in Man-to-Man play, so one is equal to four normal men.

RFisher: I understand that hero v. hero would be resolved on the Fantasy Combat Table. Hero v. normal forces would be resolved on the regular Combat Table. (The hero being classed as heavy foot, armored foot, light horse, &c. as fit the particular hero.) But were heroes & other things from the Fantasy Supplement ever used with the man-to-man rules? If so, how?

Gygax: I am quite at a loss to answer that, as the Hero and all the other Fantasy supplement figures were employed only in the play of Man-to-Man games, never in the mass system where one figure equalled 20.

[Zenopus]

sirjaguar - your cognitive dissonance is coming about because of the mixing of scales.

I am hardly an expert on this, but think about it this way: when using a 20:1 scale (or 10:1 scale) that 20 (or 10), mixed with a Hero at 1:1, it's more that 20 (or 10) men are considered to fight the same as "1 man". So it's really more a matter that 20 or 10 men are only fighting as 1 man. So if a Hero fights as 4 figures, that's equal to "4 men".

Some previous threads you may want to look over:

odd74.proboards.com/post/132272/thread
odd74.proboards.com/thread/9886/using-pcs-mass-combat
odd74.proboards.com/post/160491/thread
odd74.proboards.com/post/211556/thread

[sirjaguar]

Thanks, delta, that ENWorld interview makes it cut and dry.

[Zenopus]

...except D&D Vol 3 does have that little bit about "Battles involving large numbers of figures can be fought at a 20:1 ratio, with single fantastic types fighting separately at 1:1 or otherwise against but a single 20:1 figure" (pg 25), which does set the stage for mixed scales.


Also, Gygax's "Fantasy Wargaming A'la Tolkien" article from Panzerfaust #60 (1973) is a "Chainmail Fantasy scenario" that clearly uses 20:1 scale. The goblin army is stated to be 5,000, which is "250 wargame figures". Note however, that some of the Hero figures also represent more than a single "man". Dain's Army includes "1 Dwarf Hero" which is "Dain & retinue", and Thorin & company are another "Dwarf Hero".

[retrorob]

SUPER HEROES: Few and far between, these fellows are one-man armies!

IMC PC during battles usually fight against enemy leaders, big monsters etc. on 1:1 scale (using Alternative Combat System). I allow Hero-types to fight against detachments on 20:1 (or 10:1) scale, using Combat Table (Appendix A), but as I recently wrote in other tread, I let them roll as many d6 as Fighting Capability allows, so a Superhero can engage 8 enemies in one round (8x1 men, not 8x10 or 8x20 men! - I don't think that's the case).

[Deleted]

Ya know what?

We didn't worry about it.

We just played the game.

[Malcadon]

When I first read the rules to Chainmail a decade plus years ago, I like the idea that a "Hero"-level character fought as four-men strong. But even before that, I like the idea that a high-level Fighter could be a mythological figure who can "eat lightning, $h!t thunder." I can imagine how a "Hero" status could effect the character with something I like to call "Conan's three 'F's in life": Eatin' and drinkin' as four men in one sitting (feasting); taking on four opponents at once (fighting); and satisfying four women in a single night (yeah, you know what that "F" stands for). Chainmail's whole "Hero/Superhero" thing feels way more bad@$$ than just a heap of hit point and better to-hit.

As for the actual question, I like the idea that a Hero can suddenly fight with the power of 80 men in large pitched battles. This needs not be the strength of the Hero alone, but also a special (abstract) "tactical" and "moral" bonus he inspires upon his men along the fear he imposes on his opponents. Such a thing needs not be grounded in reality, but a quasi-supernatural feat that comes with fictional heroes in mythological/fantasy stories.

[Finarvyn]

Agreed. I think we all have a mental image of Conan wading through a mass or picts, or Gimli and Legolas fighting through mountains of orc bodies, or John Carter slogging through piles of green martians, or Corwin fighting his way up the stairs of Mount Kolvir and having to defeat hundreds of guards one at a time, or … well, literature is full of stories of heroes going one-on-many and triumphing.

And if one-versus-eighty bothers anyone, assume that the "one" is actually the hero plus his personal guards.

[delta]

Jul 18, 2019 4:43:26 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

And if one-versus-eighty bothers anyone, assume that the "one" is actually the hero plus his personal guards.

Of course, it's not just one-versus-eighty. It's one slaying eighty every turn.

The "personal guards" interpretation can work fine in a set-piece battle like @zenopus mentions above. But if it arises out of a D&D scenario where the hero doesn't have those companions, then it doesn't make sense.

My best interpretation of the Volume 3 language (granted that Gygax seems to have never used or playtested it, but the intent seems reasonable), "Battles involving large numbers of figures can be fought at a 20:1 ratio, with single fantastic types fighting separately at 1:1" is that heroes just don't interact at all with mass figures, and only fight against opposing champions. That's actually the kind of action that I mostly recall from Conan stories. And it's consistent with the recommendation in the later Swords & Spells: "When two or more scale single figures of high level are near each other they must seek out combat amongst themselves rather than with low-level creatures" (p. 18).

The only remaining question (in Vol. 3, p. 25) is what the concluding, vague "... or otherwise against but a single 20:1 figure" is supposed to mean. The "otherwise" could cover almost anything. My best attempt at a translation is that the word "single" suggests that if the hero does demand combat vs. mass figures, then you pull out one 1:20 figure, and fight a zoomed-in side combat of hero vs. 20 normal men. Again, that whole passage seems to indicate that Gygax was at least aware of the scaling issue that required a more extensive proper solution, namely Swords & Spells, as explicitly noted in that book's preface.

[rsdean]

Aug 21, 2019 22:12:50 GMT -6 delta said:

The only remaining question (in Vol. 3, p. 25) is what the concluding, vague "... or otherwise against but a single 20:1 figure" is supposed to mean. The "otherwise" could cover almost anything. My best attempt at a translation is that the word "single" suggests that if the hero does demand combat vs. mass figures, then you pull out one 1:20 figure, and fight a zoomed-in side combat of hero vs. 20 normal men. Again, that whole passage seems to indicate that Gygax was at least aware of the scaling issue that required a more extensive proper solution, namely Swords & Spells, as explicitly noted in that book's preface.

That would certainly be the way I would play it, if I were in a situation where my PCs were involved in a large scale war. But, as you say, I’m left with the impression that the Blackmoor crew did more with battle-scale action tied into the evolving RPG than the Greyhawk campaign did, so it’s probably all theoretical.

My next campaign, may it come to pass, will dabble in these areas, but I expect logistics and PC finances will put on in the 1:1 scale for battles rather than the 20:1.

[harlandski]

2: What is the assumed ratio in the Fantasy Supplement? (original thread title)

What is the assumed ratio in the Fantasy Supplement? 1:20? 1:10? 1:1? If the scale is 1:20 or 1:10, what about heroes, dragons etc - surely they only represent one figure in any case? So is the assumed ratio mixed, with one goblin figure representing 10 goblins (say) whereas one hero only represents one hero?

If the scale is mixed, does a hero fight as four men, or as four stands of men (ie 40 men)?!

I think as I've played it, I've assumed a mixed scale, though it hasn't really mattered as I've assumed that a hero fights as four normal figures, whatever they represent.

But I'm interested to know what the original intention of the rules were.

[rsdean]

The answer is indeterminate. The basic Chainmail book by itself says nothing about the fantasy supplement being other than the same 10:1 or 20:1 of the medieval mass battle rules. Page 25 of Underworld and Wilderness Adventures says to use Chainmail to resolve battles at 1:1, unless they are large battles in which case you might use 20:1 and make up some rules for heroes etc., and Gygax’s introduction to Swords and Spells, written well after the fact, suggests that the fantasy supplement in Chainmail was intended for 1:1 representation. So, 1:1, 10:1, and 20:1–there is evidence for all three.

[harlandski]

Dec 9, 2019 4:17:44 GMT -6 rsdean said:

The answer is indeterminate. The basic Chainmail book by itself says nothing about the fantasy supplement being other than the same 10:1 or 20:1 of the medieval mass battle rules. Page 25 of Underworld and Wilderness Adventures says to use Chainmail to resolve battles at 1:1, unless they are large battles in which case you might use 20:1 and make up some rules for heroes etc., and Gygax’s introduction to Swords and Spells, written well after the fact, suggests that the fantasy supplement in Chainmail was intended for 1:1 representation. So, 1:1, 10:1, and 20:1–there is evidence for all three.

I see what you mean, but I think on balance I would come down on the side of 1:1, otherwise special figures like heroes and dragons really don't make any sense.

[rsdean]

Dec 9, 2019 5:18:26 GMT -6 harlandski said:

I see what you mean, but I think on balance I would come down on the side of 1:1, otherwise special figures like heroes and dragons really don't make any sense.

I would generally make the same choice; to some extent, that’s really my only point...there is no one answer so you need to choose what works for your situation.

[clownboss]

It was never explained, and even Gary himself was very fluid in how he interpreted his own rules. But personally for me, treating "more mundane" troops such as orcs and elves count within the 1:20 ratio(because they can be substituted by the regular LF, HF etc.), while large and powerful creatures like Ogres and Heroes are singular figures with special rules. But a Hero is still worth four figures, meaning they are as worth as 80 regulars.

When you get down to it, thinking of a ratio is just an aesthetic choice. The game is still functional, whether the regulars are 1:20 or 1:1. It's just within your imagination whether Aragorn is as powerful as four orcs or 80 orcs, and I like to keep it that way. But if you're making a Chainmail game to tie-in to your OD&D campaign, it might be better to keep the ratio as 1:1, to keep a level of consistency with the PC's levels, and to add to the sense of exposure to danger and frailty that your PCs have. That's how I'd do it if it were tied to OD&D.

[Zenopus]

I've merged two threads from this year and stickied the result to create a FAQ for this topic. Feel free to continue discussing below.

[Mordorandor]

I just stumbled on this thread. Nice to see this has always been an issue from the beginning.

And from the post: "Ya know what? We didn't worry about it. We just played the game."

It sounds like conceptual cohesion was lower on the list of priorities.

[dicebro]

What if a hero was equal to 4 men? A 10 man LF unit would operate as 13 men; perhaps with a +1 and maybe fights/defends as a HF unit because the hero is included. If the unit is defeated, then dice are rolled to determine casualties. The hero might end up KIA, MIA, mortally wounded, seriously wounded, lightly wounded or unharmed. A quick rule could be devised to determine what happens to him.