Melee Rounds per Turn in Chainmail

[Malchor]

Oct 19, 2014 4:28:33 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

CHAINMAIL (1970-)

It all begins with Chainmail.

...

When Chainmail mass combat is joined an indeterminate number of ROUNDS of combat are required within each TURN. As many rounds as are required to get a conclusive Post Melee Morale result will be fought.

Both sides now total the scores arrived at in steps 1-3 above, and the side with the lower total must immediately react as follows:
0-19 difference -- melee continues (CM p15)

...

waysoftheearth are you reading the "0-19 difference -- melee continues" to mean that melee continues within the same turn?

It could also mean, those troops are still locked in melee at the start of the next turn. The plural "melees" in "the unit must check morale after melees have been completed for that turn" is not about multiple rounds of melee, but rather multiple independent melees on the table happening simultaneously. Thus, one melee, or set of melees for multiple contacts, are rolled with morale checks following and the one minute turn ends.

[delta]

Malchor: (Haven't read this whole thread) I think the next piece of supporting evidence for "melee continues within the same turn" is the Fatigue rules on CM p. 11.

FATIGUE
Continued activity brings on weariness:
1. Moving 5 consecutive turns.
2. Moving 2 consecutive turns, charging, then meleeing.
3. Moving 1 turn, charging, then meleeing 2 rounds.
4. Meleeing three rounds.

This has a clear distinction between "turns" of movement and "rounds" of melee (and consistent language, too: items 1-3 turns for moves, items 3-4 rounds for melee). This was a point I actually resisted until someone pointed out that particular table. It convinced me that rounds of melee had to be a different unit than turns of movement, and that the distinction was a result of melees being rolled multiple times in a turn. Also consistent with the relation in later D&D.

The counterargument might be that the distinction here was just sloppy language or typos, but the consistency argues against that.

Also the end of the "Example of a small melee" on p. 15-16 ends with, "if they again contact the Heavy Foot the two units will again melee that turn".

[Malchor]

Apr 22, 2020 19:09:10 GMT -6 delta said:

Malchor : (Haven't read this whole thread) I think the next piece of supporting evidence for "melee continues within the same turn" is the Fatigue rules on CM p. 11.

FATIGUE
Continued activity brings on weariness:
1. Moving 5 consecutive turns.
2. Moving 2 consecutive turns, charging, then meleeing.
3. Moving 1 turn, charging, then meleeing 2 rounds.
4. Meleeing three rounds.

This has a clear distinction between "turns" of movement and "rounds" of melee (and consistent language, too: items 1-3 turns for moves, items 3-4 rounds for melee). This was a point I actually resisted until someone pointed out that particular table. It convinced me that rounds of melee had to be a different unit than turns of movement, and that the distinction was a result of melees being rolled multiple times in a turn. Also consistent with the relation in later D&D.

The counterargument might be that the distinction here was just sloppy language or typos, but the consistency argues against that.

Also the end of the "Example of a small melee" on p. 15-16 ends with, "if they again contact the Heavy Foot the two units will again melee that turn".

Thanks delta

Interestingly, the fatigue rules do not appear until the 2nd edition of Chainmail and the last sentence of the example "The Heavy Cavalry must continue their charge, if applicable, and if they again contact the Heavy Foot the two units will again melee that turn." is not added until the 3rd edition.

You have my agreement that a turn and a round of combat are different. Melee is a form of combat, which is something that occurs are part of a turn. If two bodies of opposing forces are in melee for say 4 turns, melee occurring in the first and third turns and can be called the first round of combat and third round of combat.

That said, let's start with the fatigue table. When I look at the fatigue table I see:
1. Moving 5 consecutive turns = 5 Turns in a row, where the troops (let's say HF) moved in all 5 turns.
2. Moving 2 consecutive turns, charging, then meleeing = 3 Turns,  starting with the HF moving for the first 2 turns, then charging and entering melee in the third ("The Charge move is permitted only when melee contact is expected during some portion of the turn" p.15)
3. Moving 1 turn, charging, then meleeing 2 rounds = 3 Turns, starting with the HF moving for the first  turn, then charging and entering melee in the second, and remaining in melee for the third turn.
4. Meleeing three rounds= 3 Turns in a row, with the HF in melee combat for all three turns.

In the "Example of a small melee" (just called Example in 1st and 2nd editions), melee between 10 Heavy Horse and 20 Heavy Foot. The example shows one melee roll, the results, then walks through a moral roll for each side the HH and the HF, the reult being that the HF move back 1 move (9" in this case) in good order—this is where the example ends in 1st and 2nd edition and where the turn ends. The 3rd edition additional sentence starts the next turn. 

Let's look at that last sentence again:
"The Heavy Cavalry must continue their charge, if applicable, and if they again contact the Heavy Foot the two units will again melee that turn."

The sentence contains "must" and "if applicable" which seems contradictory, but they are not. As we know from p. 15, "The Charge move is permitted only when melee contact is expected during some portion of the turn." OK, but why "must" the Heavy Horse "continue their charge"? This is the reason (also p. 15): "Victorious charging units must continue to move out the balance of their charge move, in the direction first indicated, providing they attained victory before melee or during the first round of melee." Heavy Horse have a Charge Movement of 18". If this group of Heavy Horse used the full 18" to enter melee with the HF, then the do not have to continue (it is not applicable), if the Heavy Horse moved less than 18" before entering melee with the HF, then they must keep moving in the next Turn.

I'm not seeing anything that indicates multiple rounds of combat between the same combatants within one turn. There can be multiple sets of troops coming into contact with opposing troops on the table that result in multiple different melees as part of a turn. This is still consistent with the later OD&D rules around rest.

[waysoftheearth]

How about the CM Turn Sequence, step 6: "Melees are resolved."?

[Zenopus]

Also this:
"After the first round of melee excess troops (figures unopposed by an enemy directly before them) from the flanks or from rear ranks may be moved so as to overlap the enemy formation's flanks and even rear if movement at one half normal will allow."

If a new turn started after the first round of melee, wouldn't these troops simply be able to move a normal full movement as part of the new turn?

It seems to me a bonus half-move when a drawn out melee (multiple rounds) is occurring.

[Malchor]

Apr 22, 2020 23:17:29 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

How about the CM Turn Sequence, step 6: "Melees are resolved."?

Step 1.  Both opponents roll a die, Player A chooses to move first.

Step 2. Player A moves their troops that they wish to move, checks for passthrough fire at the mid-way point (Player B gladly rains down arrows at every chance with archers that are not moving).

Step 3. Player B moves their troops that they wish to move, checks for passthrough fire at the mid-way point (Player A's archers all moved, so they can't return the favor).

Step 4. Neither player has artillery, so move along.

Step 5. Missile fire is resolved where applicable. Reminder: "Missiles cannot be fired into a melee."

Step 6. Melees are resolved.

In the above steps the following occurred. On the far left of the table 4 HH charge and come in contact with 6 LF and melee, while on the far right 12 LF and 4 AF come in contact and melee, as well as in the center of the table there are 8 HF and another 12 LF already engaged in melee from the last turn.

Three separate melees. For each, dice are rolled for combat resolution, morale is rolled and calculated for the involved troops. As a result of the morale check, some surrender, some move back 1 move in good order, and some are left still in melee which continues in the next turn.

Line 7: Goto 1 (Step 7. repeat).

[aldarron]

Apr 22, 2020 21:05:07 GMT -6 Malchor said:

Interestingly, the fatigue rules do not appear until the 2nd edition of Chainmail and the last sentence of the example "The Heavy Cavalry must continue their charge, if applicable, and if they again contact the Heavy Foot the two units will again melee that turn." is not added until the 3rd edition.

So the implication being that there was a significant rule change? Let's unpack the statement and I think you will come to agree that this is not a useful direction to argue. CM as originally published is little more than a typed booklet, which is why there was a 2nd edition created in 1972 - only a year after the first. If there was some meaningful rule change to insert "rounds" where none had existed before, then it was very poorly communicated. Also keep in mind 2nd edition is still months before Gygax is exposed to nascent D&D. The language changes between 1st and 3rd being cited aren't new rules. It is simply clearer language.

Apr 22, 2020 21:05:07 GMT -6 Malchor said:

You have my agreement that a turn and a round of combat are different. Melee is a form of combat, which is something that occurs are part of a turn. If two bodies of opposing forces are in melee for say 4 turns, melee occurring in the first and third turns and can be called the first round of combat and third round of combat.

That said, let's start with the fatigue table. When I look at the fatigue table I see:
1. Moving 5 consecutive turns = 5 Turns in a row, where the troops (let's say HF) moved in all 5 turns.
2. Moving 2 consecutive turns, charging, then meleeing = 3 Turns,  starting with the HF moving for the first 2 turns, then charging and entering melee in the third ("The Charge move is permitted only when melee contact is expected during some portion of the turn" p.15)
3. Moving 1 turn, charging, then meleeing 2 rounds = 3 Turns, starting with the HF moving for the first  turn, then charging and entering melee in the second, and remaining in melee for the third turn.
4. Meleeing three rounds= 3 Turns in a row, with the HF in melee combat for all three turns.

Generally, assuming ambiguities to read a text in a non-obvious way isn't usually the best approach. While I agree Gygax can be ambiguous, there is no plain reason to think he is deliberately conflating rounds and turns here. If he meant round=turn, he could plainly have said that each time. The direct reading of the text is therefor the preferred one, that rounds are rounds and turns are turns.

Apr 22, 2020 21:05:07 GMT -6 Malchor said:

In the "Example of a small melee" (just called Example in 1st and 2nd editions), melee between 10 Heavy Horse and 20 Heavy Foot. The example shows one melee roll, the results, then walks through a moral roll for each side the HH and the HF, the reult being that the HF move back 1 move (9" in this case) in good order—this is where the example ends in 1st and 2nd edition and where the turn ends. The 3rd edition additional sentence starts the next turn. 

Let's look at that last sentence again:
"The Heavy Cavalry must continue their charge, if applicable, and if they again contact the Heavy Foot the two units will again melee that turn."

The sentence contains "must" and "if applicable" which seems contradictory, but they are not. As we know from p. 15, "The Charge move is permitted only when melee contact is expected during some portion of the turn." OK, but why "must" the Heavy Horse "continue their charge"? This is the reason (also p. 15): "Victorious charging units must continue to move out the balance of their charge move, in the direction first indicated, providing they attained victory before melee or during the first round of melee." Heavy Horse have a Charge Movement of 18". If this group of Heavy Horse used the full 18" to enter melee with the HF, then the do not have to continue (it is not applicable), if the Heavy Horse moved less than 18" before entering melee with the HF, then they must keep moving in the next Turn.

I'm not seeing anything that indicates multiple rounds of combat between the same combatants within one turn. There can be multiple sets of troops coming into contact with opposing troops on the table that result in multiple different melees as part of a turn. This is still consistent with the later OD&D rules around rest.

<shrug> I'm not seeing anything in that that indicates there aren't multiple rounds in a turn - quite the opposite. It was a simple example where the action resolved in 1 round. That's not unusual.

However this statement ".... if the Heavy Horse moved less than 18" before entering melee with the HF, then they must keep moving in the next Turn."

is nonsensical to me. HH charge 18" per turn so they must continue moving within a turn if applicable until that move is completed. This may mean they will run into and melee multiple units or the same unit more than once if it is forced to retreat.

In other words, the HH may be required to engage in multiple rounds of combat during a charge until their turn of movement is complete.

[Malchor]

Apr 22, 2020 23:46:14 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

Also this:
"After the first round of melee excess troops (figures unopposed by an enemy directly before them) from the flanks or from rear ranks may be moved so as to overlap the enemy formation's flanks and even rear if movement at one half normal will allow."

If a new turn started after the first round of melee, wouldn't these troops simply be able to move a normal full movement as part of the new turn?

It seems to me a bonus half-move when a drawn out melee (multiple rounds) is occurring.

This was added in the 3rd edition to "Miscellaneous Melee Information."

Cavalry (p17) has (bold aded):

Cavalry: When standing. Horse will defend normally but will return casualties at the next lower category, i.e.. Heavy become Medium, Medium become Light, and Light return casualties as if they were Armored Foot. This does not apply after the first round of a melee.  Standing Horse are defined as: A) Cavalry not ordered to move on the turn it is attacked when simultaneous movement is used, and B) Cavalry not moved during the turn melee was originated, or not moved on the turn previous to melee and meleed before being able to move on the succeeding turn, when move/counter-move is being employed.

Let's break this down in the style of modern wargame rules:
1.0 When standing. 
    1.1 Standing Horse are defined as:
        1.1.1 Simultaneous movement: Cavalry not ordered to move on the turn it is attacked
        1.1.2 Move/counter-move, either:
            1.1.2.1 Cavalry not moved during the turn melee was originated
            1.1.2.2 Not moved on the previous turn to melee and meleed before being able to move on the succeeding turn (with a little clean up for clarity: "Not moved on the previous turn and meleed before being able to move on this turn")
    1.2  Standing Horse does not apply after the first round of a melee.
    1.3 Standing Horse will
        1.3.1 Defend normally
        1.3.2 Return casualties at the next lower category, i.e.. Heavy become Medium, Medium become Light, and Light return casualties as if they were Armored Foot.

Nothing here that indicates multiple melees during one turn between the same troops, as the condition of "standing horse" is caused by not moving the cavalry before another force comes into contact and causes melee to occur.

Back to Zenopus's question. p.16, Miscellaneous Melee Information, numbered item 4. Let's look at the text:

4. After the first round of melee excess troops (figures unopposed by an enemy directly before them) from the flanks or from rear ranks may be moved so as to overlap the enemy formation's flanks and even rear if movement at one-half normal will allow.

The previous turn ended, there was a round of melee that was initiated during that turn, some troops from one side (let's say HF from Player A) remain (are "excess") and are currently unopposed with no enemy directly before them. Here I will remind that the numbered bullet just above says, "Units within 3" of a melee may be drawn into it if the player to whom they belong so desires" melee is not automatic or compulsory." Due to this, the above gives rules for how to engage the excess troops. It should also be posted out that facing rules were added in the 2nd edition.


Here is something included in Domesday Book #5, but missing from Chainmail:

The melee will usually last only one round. After the attacker has inflicted casualties and the defender has done likewise, the survivors on each side will be continued. Each player will then roll a die and multiply the number of survivors in their force by the number rolled. The player with the higher total is the winner. However, if there is less than a ten point spread between the two totals the melee will continue next turn, and on all subsequent turns until a sufficient difference in totals is arrived at.

Also missing from all editions of Chainmail, but in Domesday Book #5 'Melee range is 3"." Melee range is mentioned in Chainmail.

This is partly because a figures (X) is "considered to control the space 1" on either side" (so this extends to the front in a way), for example:

X = Figure, - = control (or reach)
-X-
- 1"
-X-2"

-X-
- 1"
- 2"
-X-3"


[Zenopus]

I'm not following you. As I said above, if it's a new turn why couldn't you just move those excess troops at full-movement as part of a new movement phase? Why the contingent requirement "if movement at one-half normal will allow"?

[Malchor]

Apr 23, 2020 5:58:34 GMT -6 aldarron said:

Apr 22, 2020 21:05:07 GMT -6 Malchor said:

Interestingly, the fatigue rules do not appear until the 2nd edition of Chainmail and the last sentence of the example "The Heavy Cavalry must continue their charge, if applicable, and if they again contact the Heavy Foot the two units will again melee that turn." is not added until the 3rd edition.

So the implication being that there was a significant rule change? Let's unpack the statement and I think you will come to agree that this is not a useful direction to argue. CM as originally published is little more than a typed booklet, which is why there was a 2nd edition created in 1972 - only a year after the first. If there was some meaningful rule change to insert "rounds" where none had existed before, then it was very poorly communicated. Also keep in mind 2nd edition is still months before Gygax is exposed to nascent D&D. The language changes between 1st and 3rd being cited aren't new rules. It is simply clearer language.

Fatigue is not a clarification, it is an addition. Whether you see the addition of fatigue as a significant rule change or just a small addition is up to each person. I see it as the latter, added rules with no change to the existing rules, it is additive.

Rounds were specifically mentioned in the Domeday Book #5, "The melee will usually last only one round." and specifically states, if in the moral roll "there is less than a ten point spread between the two totals the melee will continue next turn, and on all subsequent turns until a sufficient difference in totals is arrived at."  Gygax should have included this, clearly.

Apr 23, 2020 5:58:34 GMT -6 aldarron said:

Apr 22, 2020 21:05:07 GMT -6 Malchor said:

You have my agreement that a turn and a round of combat are different. Melee is a form of combat, which is something that occurs are part of a turn. If two bodies of opposing forces are in melee for say 4 turns, melee occurring in the first and third turns and can be called the first round of combat and third round of combat.

That said, let's start with the fatigue table. When I look at the fatigue table I see:
1. Moving 5 consecutive turns = 5 Turns in a row, where the troops (let's say HF) moved in all 5 turns.
2. Moving 2 consecutive turns, charging, then meleeing = 3 Turns,  starting with the HF moving for the first 2 turns, then charging and entering melee in the third ("The Charge move is permitted only when melee contact is expected during some portion of the turn" p.15)
3. Moving 1 turn, charging, then meleeing 2 rounds = 3 Turns, starting with the HF moving for the first  turn, then charging and entering melee in the second, and remaining in melee for the third turn.
4. Meleeing three rounds= 3 Turns in a row, with the HF in melee combat for all three turns.

Generally, assuming ambiguities to read a text in a non-obvious way isn't usually the best approach. While I agree Gygax can be ambiguous, there is no plain reason to think he is deliberately conflating rounds and turns here. If he meant round=turn, he could plainly have said that each time. The direct reading of the text is therefor the preferred one, that rounds are rounds and turns are turns.

I'm not seeing this as ambiguous, this is clearly spelled out based on the turn sequences stated earlier. Wargame rules build on each other.

I believe Gygax is not ambiguous here in most case. There are a few missing bits in Chainmail, e.g., melee range is 3", and "melee will usually last only one round" that would add more clarity, but this is not one of those cases.

Gary is not conflating rounds and turns, a round of melee can occur within a turn. They are not the same, turn 1 can contain group A in melee (melee round 1), turn 2 group A is still in melee (melee round 2) and group B enters melee (melee round 1 for that group), turn 3 can contain group A still in melee (melee round 3), group B is no longer in melee, but group c enters melee (melee round 1).

Apr 23, 2020 5:58:34 GMT -6 aldarron said:

Apr 22, 2020 21:05:07 GMT -6 Malchor said:

In the "Example of a small melee" (just called Example in 1st and 2nd editions), melee between 10 Heavy Horse and 20 Heavy Foot. The example shows one melee roll, the results, then walks through a moral roll for each side the HH and the HF, the reult being that the HF move back 1 move (9" in this case) in good order—this is where the example ends in 1st and 2nd edition and where the turn ends. The 3rd edition additional sentence starts the next turn. 

Let's look at that last sentence again:
"The Heavy Cavalry must continue their charge, if applicable, and if they again contact the Heavy Foot the two units will again melee that turn."

The sentence contains "must" and "if applicable" which seems contradictory, but they are not. As we know from p. 15, "The Charge move is permitted only when melee contact is expected during some portion of the turn." OK, but why "must" the Heavy Horse "continue their charge"? This is the reason (also p. 15): "Victorious charging units must continue to move out the balance of their charge move, in the direction first indicated, providing they attained victory before melee or during the first round of melee." Heavy Horse have a Charge Movement of 18". If this group of Heavy Horse used the full 18" to enter melee with the HF, then the do not have to continue (it is not applicable), if the Heavy Horse moved less than 18" before entering melee with the HF, then they must keep moving in the next Turn.

I'm not seeing anything that indicates multiple rounds of combat between the same combatants within one turn. There can be multiple sets of troops coming into contact with opposing troops on the table that result in multiple different melees as part of a turn. This is still consistent with the later OD&D rules around rest.

<shrug> I'm not seeing anything in that that indicates there aren't multiple rounds in a turn - quite the opposite. It was a simple example where the action resolved in 1 round. That's not unusual.

However this statement ".... if the Heavy Horse moved less than 18" before entering melee with the HF, then they must keep moving in the next Turn."

is nonsensical to me. HH charge 18" per turn so they must continue moving within a turn if applicable until that move is completed. This may mean they will run into and melee multiple units or the same unit more than once if it is forced to retreat.

In other words, the HH may be required to engage in multiple rounds of combat during a charge until their turn of movement is complete.

I'm just going to have to disagree. There is nothing I see that explicitly states there are multiple rounds of melee in one turn, yet there is explicit text in the Domesday Book that one round of combat occurs within a turn, "melee will continue next turn...."

[Malchor]

Apr 23, 2020 9:45:52 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

I'm not following you. As I said above, if it's a new turn why couldn't you just move those excess troops at full-movement as part of a new movement phase? Why the contingent requirement "if movement at one-half normal will allow"?

Oh, yeah, I missed that but in the last explanation.

You could move these figures out at a full normal move if there is a clear path in front of them. The text is talking about moving the figures into position to flank or attack from the rear. As there is no opponent in front of them, these troops need to change facing (the direction they are pointing) so they have someone in front of them to attack. Facing rules are on p. 10–11 and happen at reduced movement. Either way, this is about movement rates, not about when melee happens.

[Malchor]

I should add that while Domesday Book #5 helps to clarify, it is not necessary. The Turn Sequence rules are sufficient. "Melees are resolved" means all of the various melee battles across the table, not multiple melee rounds within a turn.

[Zenopus]

Apr 23, 2020 9:29:19 GMT -6 Malchor said:

Here is something included in Domesday Book #5, but missing from Chainmail:
The melee will usually last only one round. After the attacker has inflicted casualties and the defender has done likewise, the survivors on each side will be continued. Each player will then roll a die and multiply the number of survivors in their force by the number rolled. The player with the higher total is the winner. However, if there is less than a ten point spread between the two totals the melee will continue next turn, and on all subsequent turns until a sufficient difference in totals is arrived at.

That's an important find, particularly to the development of the rules. The Domesday Book rules are not widely available, so I'm assuming that most of us (myself included) have not seen this before. That statement makes it clear in those rules that there was just one round of melee in each turn. That said, one could argue that the omission of this statement in Chainmail as published is significant; that is, the statement was intentionally omitted because the rules had changed. In the earlier Panzerfaust rules (predating the Domesday Book version), which are available here courtesy increment, state that "The Melee will last but one round". So the length of melee rules were in flux, at least from the Panzerfaust version to the Domesday Book version. I'd need to see the full Domesday Book rules in order to comment further on the development from those rules to the published version.

[Malchor]

Apr 23, 2020 14:14:22 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

Apr 23, 2020 9:29:19 GMT -6 Malchor said:

Here is something included in Domesday Book #5, but missing from Chainmail:
The melee will usually last only one round. After the attacker has inflicted casualties and the defender has done likewise, the survivors on each side will be continued. Each player will then roll a die and multiply the number of survivors in their force by the number rolled. The player with the higher total is the winner. However, if there is less than a ten point spread between the two totals the melee will continue next turn, and on all subsequent turns until a sufficient difference in totals is arrived at.

That's an important find, particularly to the development of the rules. The Domesday Book rules are not widely available, so I'm assuming that most of us (myself included) have not seen this before. That statement makes it clear in those rules that there was just one round of melee in each turn. That said, one could argue that the omission of this statement in Chainmail as published is significant; that is, the statement was intentionally omitted because the rules had changed. In the earlier Panzerfaust rules (predating the Domesday Book version), which are available here courtesy increment , state that "The Melee will last but one round". So the length of melee rules were in flux, at least from the Panzerfaust version to the Domesday Book version. I'd need to see the full Domesday Book rules in order to comment further on the development from those rules to the published version.

"The Melee will last but one round After combat survivors are counted and multiplied by die roll to determine which side retains the ground." This also indicates to me one roll for melee combat, resolve, check morale, resolve moral, turn ends, next turn.

I will also point out in this version step 5 is "Melee." I still believe multiple melees at different parts of the table can occur simultaneously.

Not seeing anything in this version that contradicts one round of melee per turn.

[derv]

The quote assumes casualties. If there are none you will continue another round. In large conflicts with large formations it is likely that casualties will occur after one round of melee. You don't calculate post melee morale until casualties have occurred. There would be no point. No casualties, melee continues another round. Repeat until casualties occur. I think the key word in that quote is "usually".

[increment]

Part of the confusion may be rooted in how "rounds" in Chainmail's man-to-man rules (DB#7 Phil Barker derived) might differ from "rounds" in the mass combat (DB#5 Bath/Sweet derived) rules. I don't think much effort was put into reconciling the two into a consistent system. The Chainmail text that refers to 1st Round, 2nd Round and so on is clearly more derived from the DB#7 rules than the DB#5.

[Malchor]

Apr 23, 2020 15:05:06 GMT -6 derv said:

The quote assumes casualties. If there are none you will continue another round.

Where does it say this?

Apr 23, 2020 15:05:06 GMT -6 derv said:

In large conflicts with large formations it is likely that casualties will occur after one round of melee. You don't calculate post melee morale until casualties have occurred. There would be no point. No casualties, melee continues another round. Repeat until casualties occur. I think the key word in that quote is "usually".

That is not how wargame rules work. You run down the procedure, if a condition does not exist, you go to the next step unless explicitly told otherwise.

If there is a retreat or rout, then melee will stop. Could this not be the "usually" part.

[Malchor]

Apr 23, 2020 15:41:11 GMT -6 increment said:

Part of the confusion may be rooted in how "rounds" in Chainmail's man-to-man rules (DB#7 Phil Barker derived) might differ from "rounds" in the mass combat (DB#5 Bath/Sweet derived) rules. I don't think much effort was put into reconciling the two into a consistent system. The Chainmail text that refers to 1st Round, 2nd Round and so on is clearly more derived from the DB#7 rules than the DB#5.

Unlikely as the discussion thus far has focused on non-fantasy mass combat. But who knows, I can't speak for others.

[derv]

Apr 23, 2020 15:59:19 GMT -6 Malchor said:

Apr 23, 2020 15:05:06 GMT -6 derv said:

The quote assumes casualties. If there are none you will continue another round.

Where does it say this?

It doesn't have to. It's implied. You are making a calculation based on "survivors".

[dicebro]

And so what is a 0e ref supposed to take from all of this...what is the final score?

[derv]

Apr 23, 2020 18:05:07 GMT -6 dicebro said:

And so what is a 0e ref supposed to take from all of this...what is the final score?

I believe the argument being made is to support the idea of a 1 minute round. To each his own.

[aldarron]

Apr 23, 2020 10:13:20 GMT -6 Malchor said:

...Fatigue is not a clarification, it is an addition. Whether you see the addition of fatigue as a significant rule change or just a small addition is up to each person. I see it as the latter, added rules with no change to the existing rules, it is additive.

I might not have been very clear, I didn't mean to say that new rules weren't added between editions. I'm saying I don't think significant rules changes were stealthily snuck into the text without explanation.

Apr 23, 2020 10:13:20 GMT -6 Malchor said:

Rounds were specifically mentioned in the Domeday Book #5, "The melee will usually last only one round." and specifically states, if in the moral roll "there is less than a ten point spread between the two totals the melee will continue next turn, and on all subsequent turns until a sufficient difference in totals is arrived at."  Gygax should have included this, clearly.

Melees usually last one round. Yes. Melees can last more than one turn. Yes. I think both those can be true.

The Domesday Book version is all of about 6 or so pages of rules and effectively amounts to a draft of what becomes CM. We can't reliably use it to establish what comes latter since CM is much edited and improved.

That said, as I read it, the implication in the Domesday rules is that a morale check ends a turn. The check is triggered "When casualties from all causes reach a certain percentage of the unit's total strength".

These arguments aren't really helping your case much as there are as many questions as answers here. If anything the fact that CM edited out the Domesday text in question, while adding in the texts previously cited, weakens your case. And I still don't see how you can have hanging movement rate remainders carrying from one movement turn into another. That to me is a key issue, and multiple melee rounds in a turn solves that issue.

<shrug>

[Malchor]

Apr 23, 2020 18:46:14 GMT -6 aldarron said:

Apr 23, 2020 10:13:20 GMT -6 Malchor said:

...Fatigue is not a clarification, it is an addition. Whether you see the addition of fatigue as a significant rule change or just a small addition is up to each person. I see it as the latter, added rules with no change to the existing rules, it is additive.

I might not have been very clear, I didn't mean to say that new rules weren't added between editions. I'm saying I don't think significant rules changes were stealthily snuck into the text without explanation.

Not sure of the point you are trying to make here, nor if it is relevant or not if there are multiple rounds of melee in one turn between the same units. Are you saying Fatigue rule were used previously? Why would that matter? The issue is not when or how the Fatigue rules came to pass, but how they are read based on the assumption that units in a melee only melee once per turn or multiple times in a turn.

Apr 23, 2020 18:46:14 GMT -6 aldarron said:

That said, as I read it, the implication in the Domesday rules is that a morale check ends a turn. The check is triggered "When casualties from all causes reach a certain percentage of the unit's total strength".

We were talking about post-melee moral, the check that is caused by certain percentage of losses is different, that is triggered by all losses in the turn pass (thank derv for the reminder this based on loses at any time) through missile fire, artillery, missile file and melee if any or all of those occurred. This is turn in all version of Chainmail and the Domesday rules.

Apr 23, 2020 18:46:14 GMT -6 aldarron said:

These arguments aren't really helping your case much as there are as many questions as answers here. If anything the fact that CM edited out the Domesday text in question, while adding in the texts previously cited, weakens your case.

Is there really that case? Gygax refers to "melee range" in Chainmail mass combat, but never defines it, except way back in the Man-to-Man rules which are supposed to build on the mass combat rules to form man-to-man, not inform them. Yet, there is the definition in Domesday Book #5, 'Melee range is 3"'

We do agree that in mass combat, sans fantasy rules, melee range is 3", correct?

Is there anything specifically in the Domesday Book rules that was not included in the completed Chainmail or is contradictory? There are additions, but how much is left out that is not in some other way carried over, even in spirit? 

Post melee procedure are a little different and even evolve between editions, but basics from the Doomsday Book version are still embedded in there.

At odds are two interpretations of two things it seems:
1. If there are no casualties, do you move on in the procedure or do you re-roll? I think the former, obviously others think the latter and from the thread it can be inferred, many consider this second roll a second round of melee.

2. If in the Post Melee Moral check the result is "melee continues" does melee continue in this turn or in the next turn? Again, I read the rules see the former and others see the latter.

There have been other discussions on this forum making a case for the former of the two questions above, most people here believe the latter. And it seems some who subscribe to the former used to believe the latter.

Can we agree this is the difference in POV on the rules?

Apr 23, 2020 18:46:14 GMT -6 aldarron said:

 And I still don't see how you can have hanging movement rate remainders carrying from one movement turn into another. That to me is a key issue, and multiple melee rounds in a turn solves that issue.

Conversely, I don't see why it is an issue. Without carrying over melee, the rest of the units o the table are standing still, which seems odd to me.

I am wondering if different groups in the 70s read the rules both of the ways mentioned above and played the game just a bit differently due to it.

<button class="wayback1996-RTclose">×</button>

[derv]

Chainmail has the possibility of morale checks occurring throughout the turn sequence under a number of different circumstances. These can happen despite and even curtail the possibility of a melee happening during the turn. They can also have implications on resolving melee if a unit is already shaken (unstable). Melee is therefore the final segment that needs to be resolved.

"...morale checks can occur during the fire and/or melee portions of any given turn, depending on the circumstance. However, morale checks must be made during whatever segment of the turn the rules require." p.9 CM 3e

So, for each segment of the turn the following applies:

1. Movement
>>>Cavalry/ Swiss Pike charge- a. Morale check b. continue charge if applicable (ie. defending unit has retreated)
>>>Split move and fire- Excess casualties morale check
>>>Pass through fire- Excess casualties morale check

2. Artillery >>> Excess casualties morale check

3. Missile fire >>> Excess casualties morale check

4. Melee
>>>a. Excess casualties morale check
>>>b. Post melee morale check
>>>c. Continue charge if applicable (ie. defending unit has retreated or routed after one round of melee)

"Melee Resolution: After both players have rolled the number of dice allotted to them for their meleeing troops by the Combat Tables, casualties are removed, and morale for both opponents is checked." (ie. post melee morale) p.15 CM 3e

5.Next Turn

Probably the best textual support for multiple rounds of melee is stated under Missile Troops refusing melee on p.15 CM 3e. This is talking about all charging troop types, not just cavalry or pikes.

"However, if the footmen who are meleed are killed or driven away (ie. excess casualty morale check), the missile troops must fight if the attacker is able to continue his charge move."

[Malchor]

p. 17, MORALE, Instability Due to Excess Casualties: "If the loss is brought about by melee, the unit must check morale after melees have been completed for that turn."

This sentence might be one that brings me around to multiple melees in a turn. Might have missed the context of this sentence before and will have to ponder it some more.

Question. If a unit of troops becomes unstable they are removed from the table correct? But they need a "route of retreat" before being removed, correct? Because, "Surrounded units that fail morale checks are assumed to immediately surrender."

<button class="wayback1996-RTclose">×</button>

[waysoftheearth]

Apr 22, 2020 15:58:19 GMT -6 Malchor said:

waysoftheearth are you reading the "0-19 difference -- melee continues" to mean that melee continues within the same turn?

I have always believed that is the implication, yes.

It's an interesting possibility to consider one round per turn, and I agree there are a couple of phrases that could be interpreted that way. The "no missiles can be fired into melee" remark seems, to me, redundant unless a melee can exist on the board into the next missile segment of the turn. Or, it is simply re-emphasising that the missile and melee segments of the turn are disjunct.

But if there were only one round of melee per turn it would have been trivial and instructive to say "0-19 difference -- melee continues next turn".

Consider also: if there was only ever one round of melee per turn then there would be no need for the "round" terminology at all; we would only ever need to refer to the melee segment of the "turn". So why include "rounds" at all?

Albeit this is not specifically Chainmail, but it may be indicative that S&S (p17) is explicit that there can be 1, 2, or 3 round of melee per turn.


FWIW, clownboss has posted some detailed battle reports demonstrating multiple melee rounds per turn here.

[derv]

Apr 24, 2020 18:16:19 GMT -6 Malchor said:

Question. If a unit of troops becomes unstable they are removed from the table correct? But they need a "route of retreat" before being removed, correct? Because, "Surrounded units that fail morale checks are assumed to immediately surrender."

<button class="wayback1996-RTclose">×</button>

Once a unit has been reduced by the stated percentage of losses it is considered unstable or shaken. It must then pass morale to stay in play. If it fails morale it is removed from the table. If it passes morale and is later subject to an equal amount of losses it is removed from play. Another check is not made.

Apr 24, 2020 18:29:21 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

It's an interesting possibility to consider one round per turn, and I agree there are a couple of phrases that could be interpreted that way. The "no missiles can be fired into melee" remark seems, to me, redundant unless a melee can exist on the board into the next missile segment of the turn. Or, it is simply re-emphasising that the missile and melee segments of the turn are disjunct.

Movements, including charges, are resolved first. Stationary archers can make pass through fire at that time. Then melee is established because units are now in melee distance, 1" if not base to base contact. If the archers have not moved and are not in melee they could fire a second time. This rule is stating that such fire is not allowed during the missile segment of the turn. An unengaged unit must be the target. This can all happen within one turn.

[Zenopus]

Apr 23, 2020 14:38:37 GMT -6 Malchor said:

Apr 23, 2020 14:14:22 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

That's an important find, particularly to the development of the rules. The Domesday Book rules are not widely available, so I'm assuming that most of us (myself included) have not seen this before. That statement makes it clear in those rules that there was just one round of melee in each turn. That said, one could argue that the omission of this statement in Chainmail as published is significant; that is, the statement was intentionally omitted because the rules had changed. In the earlier Panzerfaust rules (predating the Domesday Book version), which are available here courtesy increment , state that "The Melee will last but one round". So the length of melee rules were in flux, at least from the Panzerfaust version to the Domesday Book version. I'd need to see the full Domesday Book rules in order to comment further on the development from those rules to the published version.

"The Melee will last but one round After combat survivors are counted and multiplied by die roll to determine which side retains the ground." This also indicates to me one roll for melee combat, resolve, check morale, resolve moral, turn ends, next turn.

I will also point out in this version step 5 is "Melee." I still believe multiple melees at different parts of the table can occur simultaneously.

Not seeing anything in this version that contradicts one round of melee per turn.

My point here was not whether or not the Panzerfaust version had any details that support multiple rounds, but rather that the conception of rounds changed from "one round" period (because there is always a winner/loser) in the Panzerfaust version, to the "usually one round" with a possible continuation in another turn in the Domesday Book version. And thus it may have changed again to the published Chainmail.

[Zenopus]

Apr 24, 2020 18:16:19 GMT -6 Malchor said:

This sentence might be one that brings me around to multiple melees in a turn. Might have missed the context of this sentence before and will have to ponder it some more.

I'm more agnostic now myself after looking over all of this in detail.

I took a look at Warriors of Mars, which uses a similar turn sequence that is clearly modeled off the one in Chainmail. There, Gygax & Blume use the exact same "turns" and "rounds" terminology, but are clear that there is only one round of melee each turn, like the earlier rules in the Domesday Book cited above:

Continuation of Melee: Each turn there will be one "round" of battle when a melee is progress [sic], and casualties will be extracted as explained above. The melee will end only when one side or the other has a morale failure. Morale is explained hereafter.

The rules further go on to refer to the "first round of melee" and "first and second round of melee" despite these happening in different turns.

So here there is but one round of melee per turn, and melee continuing means that it continues in a different turn, and a "second round" of melee means that the melee was continued to a new round in the next turn.

Of course, Warriors of Mars has only 10 second turns, so this could be a change from Chainmail (i.e., because turns are considered shorter in WoM, melee can continue between them).

The lack of such a clear statement in Chainmail could be telling - or an omission!

[waysoftheearth]

It could be constructive to hear from anyone who has participated in the Chainmail games at GaryCon (or similar)...