|
Post by tdenmark on Jul 24, 2021 20:04:37 GMT -6
3) Regardless of the exact phraseology used (which is notoriously inexact), the gist appears to be that man-to-man combat is at the blow by blow level of detail. Arneson talks in terms of "chops". Gygax talks about "blows". It's that granular. My favorite definition of a turn is from Marvel Super Heroes: one comic book panel. Ok, barely relevant to this conversation, but I do prefer Turn to be ambiguous rather than exact. Because of the dynamics at the gaming table and the nature of action in time & space. Some fights are incredibly fast, the shootout at OK Corral reportedly took place within 30 seconds. When you watch a boxing match the back and forth can vary from mere moments to minutes.
|
|
ThrorII
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 107
|
Post by ThrorII on Jul 25, 2021 0:05:09 GMT -6
I've come to decide that there are THREE turn structures in OD&D: The 10 minute Underworld Exploration turn, the 24 hour Wilderness Exploration turn, and the 1 minute Combat turn. Don't forget the implied "campaign turn" at which scale everything takes numbers of weeks Then there's the BECMI Campaign Turn, where every 3 months, there's a chance a meteor will strike your dominion and kill everyone....
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on Jul 25, 2021 13:43:09 GMT -6
For me, the infamous line is more likely suggesting there are ten melee rounds per one-minute combat turn. The more I think about it, that's how I understand it too. Melee turn (being something different than exploratory turn) comes from Chainmail and is one minute long, but there can be more than one round within. Eldritch Wizardry splits melee turn into segments, Arneson in AiF had 1-minute turn with 3 segments of 20 seconds each, and I wouldn't completely ignore Warriors of Mars.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jul 25, 2021 16:04:03 GMT -6
The question is, why is it *more likely* that Gygax intended 6 second rounds in OD&D (10 rounds/per 1 minute "combat turn"), than one minute rounds, with 10 equaling a ten-minute turn?
*We've got Chainmail saying that "One turn of play is roughly equivalent to one minute of time in battle", and Gygax's 1975 letter upthread, indicating but a single melee round per turn in Chainmail.
*We've got OD&D adding "Two moves constitute a turn" and "There are ten rounds of combat per turn", with no other stated distinction between turns.
*We've got Gygax saying in 1978 that the 1 minute melee round in OD&D was what was intended:
(Dragon #15, June 1978, "From the Sorcerer's Scroll: D&D GROUND AND SPELL AREA SCALE")
*We've got Gygax keeping the 1-minute round in AD&D, and defending it.
It's pretty easy from the above to draw a straight line from the Chainmail 1-minute turn through OD&D to the AD&D 1-minute round. It's possible to argue that shorter rounds were intended in OD&D Vol 3, but I think it requires a heavier burden to overcome the above than has been put forth so far. And it's harder now that there's evidence indicating that the Chainmail turn was not, by default, meant to include multiple rounds of combat.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 25, 2021 17:39:38 GMT -6
The question is, why is it *more likely* that Gygax intended 6 second rounds in OD&D (10 rounds/per 1 minute "combat turn"), than one minute rounds, with 10 equaling a ten-minute turn? Oddly you stepped over Holmes understanding of the round I will add that I don't think the example given by Gygax in the GPGPN is conclusive evidence of a 1 minute round. It was an example meant to illustrate Post Melee Morale where Gary was giving off the cuff averages for kills without rolling dice. Rounds remain indeterminable if no casualties occur and undefinable IMO. Even in OD&D rounds remain undefinable. If your opponent is killed in three rounds of the combat turn we do not say combat lasted 3 minutes, or even 18 seconds depending on your viewpoint. We say it lasted a turn, whether 1 minute or 10 minutes. We are told to rationalize this "extra time" with regrouping, tending to our minor wounds, catching our breath, or whatever.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 25, 2021 18:14:30 GMT -6
Good points Zenopus. I suspect this one will probably never be resolved definitively but for the sake of discussion, how about: * A line between CM 1:20 and AD&D 1:1 is not as straight or as short as a line between CM 1:1 and OD&D 1:1. * In 1973, Gygax has a set of 1:1 scale combat rules (CM M2M). Along comes Arneson and shows him how to plug it into an exciting new context. Gygax loves it and hastily publishes. Including a bunch of references explicitly promoting his pre-existing CM rules. * A bunch of contemporaneous, TSR-related, 1:1 scale combat rules all/mostly have short-period melee rounds. * The language ("chops" and "blows") implies short rounds. * The movement rates per round (EW, Holmes) imply short rounds. * In B2 (1978) Gygax writes: << If fighting should occur, the time reference shifts to a melee turn which is divided into ten, 10 second melee rounds.>> (Bold original). Granted this was for Holmes (more-or-less the edit OD&D never had), but Gygax was rarely clearer. * Later discussion of AD&D doesn't really solve for OD&D. D&D was evolving rapidly in the early years, and AD&D was intentionally a "different enough" beast. For one thing, it further divides a melee round into 6-second segments (memory?). Besides, Gygax isn't the most reliable narrator ever. In any case, the important thing isn't the precise duration of a round, but more: how many opportunities are there to strike melee blows for each opportunity to move, cast missiles/spells, check morale? Should there be one or many blows struck? Most readers accept that an archer has two opportunities to fire per period; a rule ported directly from CM's mass shooting rules, into CM 1:1, and on into D&D 1:1. CM M2M (1:1 scale) also has the notion of multiple blows within a single melee period based on weapon size. I believe Holmes also includes a simplification of this. So it seems that OD&D is book-ended by rules with the potential for multiple blows per combat period. It's difficult to see that OD&D was "meant to be" handled differently, given the 3LBBs refer the reader to CM and are so lite on specifics for any alternative (bar the d20 matrices to determine hits). So, there are hints lying around that can go either way. In the end, I think it's one of the important calls the OD&D ref has to make.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 25, 2021 19:27:48 GMT -6
Regarding Chainmail, I would offer that Fantastic Combat presents the possibility of only one round of combat. Like M2M it assumes an attacker and a defender. If the attacker scores under the total shown on the table the defender has the option of withdrawing or, presumably countering. Score equal to total and opponent falls back. Score over total kills opponent. For some that is the end of the turn.
But if you understand Fantastic Combat in terms of the M2M initiative system, then multiple rounds (blows) are still a potentiality.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 26, 2021 0:46:16 GMT -6
I largely agree with your post re: FCT derv. A bit of a ramble: CM (and of course the FCT) was created years earlier than D&D (1971?), so it possibly wasn't even the latest conception of fantastic combat by 1974. That's where WoM gets interesting. MoW was published mid-1974, so was likely in development thru early 1974 and possibly-maybe even overlapped with OD&D development? That's not to suggest anyone ever played D&D with the WoM matrix (although now I'm tempted to try ), just that WoM has something like a "modernised" FCT which makes for an interesting comparison. Unlike OD&D, WoM gives details on how to run combat, and its attack matrix has Men of 13 levels versus men and a bunch of monsters. Exactly the kind of thing that would have been great in D&D. FWIW, WoM is explicit that at 1:1 scale a turn is 10 seconds, there are two rounds of melee per turn, and that some figures (notably higher level Men) could strike twice per round. So a single man could potentially dice up to four times in one combat turn. If the attacker scores under the total shown on the table the defender has the option of withdrawing or, presumably countering. I had thought both figures would dice simultaneously, but now I'm not seeing it stated anywhere The Enchanted Arrows section (2nd Ed. p34) has: <<... and if sufficient, the target is killed. Of course, there is no return roll, unless the target is also armed with a similar weapon.>> which kinda implies there ordinarily would be a return roll, even if a figure is slain. and I wouldn't completely ignore Warriors of Mars. Was this to point out something particular retrorob? I'm interested
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jul 26, 2021 10:27:01 GMT -6
waysoftheearth, I think retrorob may be referring to what I posted upthread a few days ago about WoM having an explicit 1:1 scale with 10 sec turns comprising 2 rounds of combat: One item I'll post in support of the Donjon Lands argument is that Warriors of Mars, which includes systems clearly derived from Chainmail, has two separate scales that "are not mixed on the table": 1:50, in which "1 turn = 1 min" and "1" = 10 yards" 1:1, in which "1 turn = 10 sec" and "1" = 6 feet" The 1:1 scale is described on pages 16-17 and appears modified from Chainmail MTM, and "has two rounds of melee each turn", thus rounds are 5 sec each. Now, whether this type of split scale was ever used with Chainmail Mass Combat/MTM is up to interpretation, but it almost appears to be written in recognition of the ambiguity of Chainmail.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 26, 2021 15:50:44 GMT -6
FWIW, WoM is explicit that at 1:1 scale a turn is 10 seconds, there are two rounds of melee per turn, and that some figures (notably higher level Men) could strike twice per round. So a single man could potentially dice up to four times in one combat turn. We may be looking at this from different angles. It seems as if the primary point you are making is that melee in Chainmail and consequently OD&D is intended as sub-minute (short) duration rounds. I would agree with this sentiment. Though I would resist the desire to quantify the round. In Chainmail the entire turn is considered to last one minute. The turn sequence is broken down into segments that all make up the turn. Melee is but one part of the sequence. Missile fire is another. Movement is yet another. This applies whether you use the move/counter move or simultaneous movement system. Some units will move and melee. Maybe even change facing in the process. Some will not move and still end up in melee contact. Others might fire missiles and melee. There are a number of different situations that are all considered to occur in the one minute turn. It is not practical to quantify each of these activities that are taking place. So, why do we attempt to do it with the round? Melee is just one portion of what is happening on the table during the turn. The argument is from a simulationist position. It is also what drives the debate about how many times an archer can shoot during the turn. But there are two ways to look at simulation. One is to try to replicate all the actions and representations of the pieces on the table with real life data in how the game is played. The other is to try to replicate the outcomes of the game with real life data, historical or otherwise. I believe Chainmail was intended to fall in the later and is more concerned with outcomes. So, it's pretty obvious how movement is happening as a separate activity then melee during a turn in Chainmail. This distinction gets cloudy for people looking at D&D post Greyhawk and Holmes where movement gets segmented in with melee. This isn't saying no movement is thought to occur during melee in Chainmail. Just that it is not considered as part of the resolution. It's abstracted. Coming back around to WoM. Is there something to suggest that because the turn is 10 seconds at 1:1, the melee round is 5 seconds? Or, like Chainmail, there are a number of activities that could take place in addition to melee during the turn? Which really makes the round undefinable in length, though certainly less then 10 seconds.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 26, 2021 16:14:44 GMT -6
I had thought both figures would dice simultaneously, but now I'm not seeing it stated anywhere The Enchanted Arrows section (2nd Ed. p34) has: <<... and if sufficient, the target is killed. Of course, there is no return roll, unless the target is also armed with a similar weapon.>> which kinda implies there ordinarily would be a return roll, even if a figure is slain. "All other fire, both artillery and missile, is considered to simultaneously take effect just prior to melee resolution." (p5 CM 2e)
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 26, 2021 17:40:34 GMT -6
It seems as if the primary point you are making is that melee in Chainmail and consequently OD&D is intended as sub-minute (short) duration rounds. I would agree with this sentiment. Though I would resist the desire to quantify the round. I agree derv. I'm not attempting to quantify the exact duration of a round. I believe that is moot (as you point out). I also believe there is reasonable support for the notion of a sub-minute 1:1 scale combat blows (particularly in the D&D context). What seems most relevant to me (again for the D&D context) is the ratio of the number of potential melee blows to other things that can occur in a combat turn--particularly spell casting and morale checks. "All other fire, both artillery and missile, is considered to simultaneously take effect just prior to melee resolution." (p5 CM 2e) Nice, thanks I was thinking more about melee resolution on the FCT being simultaneous. I guess this is also inherited from the mass combat system (CM 2nd Ed. p12): << 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.>>
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 26, 2021 19:14:02 GMT -6
I was thinking more about melee resolution on the FCT being simultaneous. I guess this is also inherited from the mass combat system (CM 2nd Ed. p12): << 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.>> I think it is a blow/ counter blow system like MtM. The table seems to support this with the labels of attacker and defender. Also, the results suggest this since they kind of have a morale result wrapped into them.
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on Jul 27, 2021 3:00:11 GMT -6
As for FCT, I don't think blows are simultaneous. Let's suppose that attacker has hit the target number, so now defender "must fall back 1 move". I guess that's it for the latter - he needs to withdraw and doesn't roll the dice that turn, so it's impossible to be killed and force the enemy to withdraw at the same time. The question is - who is the attacker, i.e. who has the initiative and goes first? Here where MtM system comes in (higher position, longer weapon etc.) or perhaps the general rules (one who made contact - got into melee distance/range first, rolled higher on dice etc.). By mentioning Warriors of Mars, I think this text can be potentially more important than Gygax' later statements. I don't say WoM is a lost OD&D supplement, but for sure it can be seen in a broader context, as a part of wargaming culture. It corroborates that back in 1974 (and perhaps even earlier) the concept of scaling turn length was familiar; if the 1:1 turn is 5, 6, 10 seconds isn't really important here. If that's the case in Chainmail MtM/FCT system, I'm not able to say, and I highly doubt if this dilemma can ever be settled - but it's always great to read your interpretations!
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 27, 2021 5:33:25 GMT -6
I think it is a blow/ counter blow system like MtM. The table seems to support this with the labels of attacker and defender. Also, the results suggest this since they kind of have a morale result wrapped into them. As for FCT, I don't think blows are simultaneous. Let's suppose that attacker has hit the target number, so now defender "must fall back 1 move". I guess that's it for the latter - he needs to withdraw and doesn't roll the dice that turn, so it's impossible to be killed and force the enemy to withdraw at the same time. The question is - who is the attacker, i.e. who has the initiative and goes first? Here where MtM system comes in (higher position, longer weapon etc.) or perhaps the general rules (one who made contact - got into melee distance/range first, rolled higher on dice etc.). Mmm, I see what you're saying. Let me ponder that a bit. I need to reconcile whether FC and M2M are independent developments of the mass combat rules, or whether FC is a further development of M2M which is itself a further development of mass combat. And what this means for FC in a 1:20 battle. Are we saying that in order to run FC in a 1:20 battle, we need to go via the M2M rules?? Meanwhile, assuming you are correct, it seems this makes the first blow even more important than in M2M At least if you lose a guy without a blow in M2M, he was cheap and there's often another to step into the gap. But in fantastic combat your figure is expensive, and you probably have just one.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 27, 2021 5:50:19 GMT -6
By mentioning Warriors of Mars, I think this text can be potentially more important than Gygax' later statements. I don't say WoM is a lost OD&D supplement, but for sure it can be seen in a broader context, as a part of wargaming culture. It corroborates that back in 1974 (and perhaps even earlier) the concept of scaling turn length was familiar; if the 1:1 turn is 5, 6, 10 seconds isn't really important here. If that's the case in Chainmail MtM/FCT system, I'm not able to say, and I highly doubt if this dilemma can ever be settled I agree retrorob. Another thing I'll mention is that fantastic combat is not exactly well specified in CM itself, so it's "handy" to have something similar/analogous better described in WoM.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 27, 2021 6:42:52 GMT -6
Let me ponder that a bit. I need to reconcile whether FC and M2M are independent developments of the mass combat rules, or whether FC is a further development of M2M which is itself a further development of mass combat. And what this means for FC in a 1:20 It’s both. I’ll try to elaborate later. We know fantasy elements were being used with the MCT ie 1:20. Also, it’s pretty clear that the FCT was meant for 1:1. Edit: probably easier to suggest looking at Patt rules and publication date, DB5 publication, DB7 publication, and CM publication. You can draw your own conclusions instead of me babbling on the subject. I have my own opinions if you want to discuss them. Edit2: I’ll also add that I don’t feel figure scale (ratio) is necessarily analogous with the separate combat tables. For example playing CM with the mass combat tables at 1:1.
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Jul 27, 2021 9:22:29 GMT -6
I thought I read that Gary didn't intend for fantastic figures to melee normal units in Chainmail. I know that it appears possible, but it was the intent that fantastic types would seek each other out to go a round on the Fantasy matrix, right?
Anyway, reading Chainmail alone, I would say that the man-to-man portion was first conceived of to decide what transpired at the top of a castle wall during a siege where the defenders are trying to repel the invaders on the ramparts. If chainmail were a sailing game, melee would likewise decide the outcome of the pirates attempting to board.
The point being that, maybe there is a clue in the siege rules that would help determine the nature and purpose of the man-to-man turn.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jul 27, 2021 13:34:51 GMT -6
The point being that, maybe there is a clue in the siege rules that would help determine the nature and purpose of the man-to-man turn. Perhaps. Though, before reading too much into them it seems relevant to me that the siege rules were originally written as part of the mass combat system. Ultimately if you’re looking at Chainmail as part of the lineage of OD&D, and I think you should, to inform us on whether a round is sub-minute in duration, the answer is obviously “yes”.
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Jul 27, 2021 14:37:14 GMT -6
Ah, you're right. The siege rules ARE in the original LGTSA rules -the final paragraph.
|
|
|
Post by Mordorandor on Oct 11, 2021 9:42:49 GMT -6
.... In any case, the important thing isn't the precise duration of a round, but more: how many opportunities are there to strike melee blows for each opportunity to move, cast missiles/spells, check morale? Should there be one or many blows struck? Most readers accept that an archer has two opportunities to fire per period; a rule ported directly from CM's mass shooting rules, into CM 1:1, and on into D&D 1:1. CM M2M (1:1 scale) also has the notion of multiple blows within a single melee period based on weapon size. I believe Holmes also includes a simplification of this. So it seems that OD&D is book-ended by rules with the potential for multiple blows per combat period. It's difficult to see that OD&D was "meant to be" handled differently, given the 3LBBs refer the reader to CM and are so lite on specifics for any alternative (bar the d20 matrices to determine hits). So, there are hints lying around that can go either way. In the end, I think it's one of the important calls the OD&D ref has to make. So significant a ruling that it fundamentally changes the tone of any debate/comparison between the power and strength of Warriors and Wizards. Think of the shift in the debate about overpower/imbalance between, say, a 5th-level Wizard and a 5th-level Warrior, when a 5th-Level Wizard (3 HD and poor AC) using a 5d fire ball once per turn is compared now to a 5th-level Warrior (5+1 HD and AC 2) with potentially 5-15-ish dice rolls to score hits once per turn (over 1-3 melee rounds). Also, if using the Morale guidelines from CM, the calculations far and away reward Warriors, who represent many more "men" according to their Fighting Capability. Warriors will cause many lower HD foes to retreat/rout within the first round or two of the first turn. 7th-level Warriors (and higher) truly become the Conan-like terrors CM references.
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Oct 12, 2021 17:09:09 GMT -6
For myself, I now think there's very little to argue that CM was written with the intent of allowing figures any more than one bout of combat in a game turn. This is what I think all of us assumed during our first readings (because really who wouldn't); then there were some years where online consensus was that a clever reading suggests multiple rounds; but now we have been directed to the primary evidence that we were in fact correct the first time after all, no clever readings needed.
However, when I happen to run CM again, I am seriously unsure if I would go back to 1 turn : 1 combat round, precisely because the clever reading is just the sort of unexpected arcana that makes playing CM fun.
However, I would make fantastic and man-to-man combat still operate at 1:1, I think. Each game turn, massed units will fight multiple melee rounds until a conclusive decision has been determined for the round, and those who for whatever reason are engaged as individuals will fight man-to-man or on the FCT but once (as a 1-minute combat round). No I haven't hammered out the corner cases or particulars, but at first glance it seems reasonable to me.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 2, 2022 22:28:35 GMT -6
Another CM passage to perhaps add to consideration:
CM2 p33/CM3 p37 WIGHTS (and Ghouls) has this:
Although this is in the fantasy supplement, it describes mass combat between wights and normal men.
It seems to me that if, ordinarily, there were "but only one round" during "one complete turn" it would not be necessary to include this passage at all.
The next question is then: If there is ordinarily one round of blows per turn, and wight paralaysis lasts for one turn, and a paralysed figure fights for one round in that turn, then what is the actual combat effect of wight/ghoul paralysis?
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on Oct 3, 2022 5:34:09 GMT -6
I guess a turn is obviously a more capacious term than a round, covering movement, artillery/spells, missile volley and a round of melee/blows/chops. The question is - are there more than one round during one turn. Even if there is only one, the effect of paralysis is still dreadful. A paralysed figure can't move and fight, unless touched by a friendly hero, elf or wizard. See the Wraith/Nazgul passage.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Oct 3, 2022 10:11:27 GMT -6
Another CM passage to perhaps add to consideration: CM2 p33/CM3 p37 WIGHTS (and Ghouls) has this: Although this is in the fantasy supplement, it describes mass combat between wights and normal men. It seems to me that if, ordinarily, there were "but only one round" during "one complete turn" it would not be necessary to include this passage at all. The next question is then: If there is ordinarily one round of blows per turn, and wight paralaysis lasts for one turn, and a paralysed figure fights for one round in that turn, then what is the actual combat effect of wight/ghoul paralysis? "If they touch a normal figure during melee..." Some questions: ---When do you think this condition met? Is it automatic if the two figures are in melee range at the end of the movement? ---"One full turn". Does this mean that the paralysis lasts from the start of melee in the first turn until the start of melee in the second turn, or does it mean an entire turn, i.e., the entire second turn?
|
|
|
Post by Mordorandor on Oct 3, 2022 12:23:19 GMT -6
Another CM passage to perhaps add to consideration: CM2 p33/CM3 p37 WIGHTS (and Ghouls) has this: Although this is in the fantasy supplement, it describes mass combat between wights and normal men. It seems to me that if, ordinarily, there were "but only one round" during "one complete turn" it would not be necessary to include this passage at all. The next question is then: If there is ordinarily one round of blows per turn, and wight paralaysis lasts for one turn, and a paralysed figure fights for one round in that turn, then what is the actual combat effect of wight/ghoul paralysis? "If they touch a normal figure during melee..." Some questions: ---When do you think this condition met? Is it automatic if the two figures are in melee range at the end of the movement? ---"One full turn". Does this mean that the paralysis lasts from the start of melee in the first turn until the start of melee in the second turn, or does it mean an entire turn, i.e., the entire second turn? I've seen terminology to help differentiate certain overlapping but not identical time frames in a game. In this example, round could = 1 minute turn, but it could be used to ensure the counting only those turns of combat, thus, the battle lasts 10 turns but there were only 5 rounds of melee (5 turns of melee) in that time. Chainmail does seem to suggest with its ambiguous language multiple rounds of melee in the morale section when it states "melee continues," without explicitly stating either "in the same turn" or "into the next turn." To the questions Zenopus poses, I take a miniature wargame approach. #1. The bases touch. In RPGs, when within 5 feet or so of a foe. #2. The latter: "The entire second turn." Since movement can have the foes come into contact after the turn begins, then it lasts all of the next turn, and the foe can act normally (make declarations) on the third turn of combat (or, as we were talking, on the third round of melee).
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on Oct 3, 2022 15:05:41 GMT -6
Another CM passage to perhaps add to consideration: CM2 p33/CM3 p37 WIGHTS (and Ghouls) has this: Although this is in the fantasy supplement, it describes mass combat between wights and normal men. It seems to me that if, ordinarily, there were "but only one round" during "one complete turn" it would not be necessary to include this passage at all. The next question is then: If there is ordinarily one round of blows per turn, and wight paralaysis lasts for one turn, and a paralysed figure fights for one round in that turn, then what is the actual combat effect of wight/ghoul paralysis? "If they touch a normal figure during melee..." Some questions: ---When do you think this condition met? Is it automatic if the two figures are in melee range at the end of the movement? ---"One full turn". Does this mean that the paralysis lasts from the start of melee in the first turn until the start of melee in the second turn, or does it mean an entire turn, i.e., the entire second turn? If I had to guess, I would say: - melee range (no standard figurines basis back then) - the entire second turn Example Turn one: During movement phase Wights comes in melee range with Heavy Foot. Melee occures - both sides roll dice, and let's suppose that both sides survived. Turn two: Heavy Foot are now paralysed, so they can't move nor fight. Perhaps they are eliminated automatically, if Wights continue their attack. But if during movement phase the player manages to get a hero nearby, the paralysis effect wears off.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 3, 2022 21:31:40 GMT -6
The next question is then: If there is ordinarily one round of blows per turn, and wight paralaysis lasts for one turn, and a paralysed figure fights for one round in that turn, then what is the actual combat effect of wight/ghoul paralysis? One possible answer is: wight/ghoul paralysis has no impact on combat; it only impacts movement. However, in that case it would seem a bit awkward that the description text talks about melee and doesn't mention movement explicitly.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Oct 4, 2022 3:26:35 GMT -6
The next question is then: If there is ordinarily one round of blows per turn, and wight paralaysis lasts for one turn, and a paralysed figure fights for one round in that turn, then what is the actual combat effect of wight/ghoul paralysis? I'd read it like this: The paralyzed unit cannot act during the next turn.
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on Oct 4, 2022 8:34:12 GMT -6
The next question is then: If there is ordinarily one round of blows per turn, and wight paralaysis lasts for one turn, and a paralysed figure fights for one round in that turn, then what is the actual combat effect of wight/ghoul paralysis? One possible answer is: wight/ghoul paralysis has no impact on combat; it only impacts movement. However, in that case it would seem a bit awkward that the description text talks about melee and doesn't mention movement explicitly. Have you checked Wraith passage? As for the rest - I don't think the paralyzed troops can melee at all. They just stand and, hm, are paralyzed (out of fear perhaps). But it's not explicitly stated.
|
|