|
Post by Mordorandor on Oct 6, 2022 15:19:21 GMT -6
As I've thought about this more -- rounds and turns -- I'm thinking Gary re-purposed the term "turn" to describe the 10-minute exploration move, and re-named the 1-minute Chainmail, combat turn "round" to avoid confusion.
Thus, I get the sense Gary is saying, "Hey, players, in D&D, the turn is 10 minutes, so don't think that one gets only one attack/action in one 10-minute turn, because melee is fast and furious, being ten 1-minute periods in a turn, and I'm calling those rounds, which keeps combat consistent with the scale in Chainmail."
And thus going back to a point someone made a while ago, that there's a general belief Chainmail is saying there is only one exchange of blows in a combat turn and not multiple rounds of blows in one turn. The round simply being a way to refer to turns that are strictly melee based.
A point I think some others have made on these boards.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 21, 2022 22:25:30 GMT -6
I agree it's an appealing narrative, but (notwithstanding this pertains to D&D rather than CM) it's difficult for me to reconcile it with printed words from the CM/OD&D period. E.g., suggested movement per melee round in EW (1976), 10 second rounds in Holmes (1977), and Gygax's own explanation that a melee turn (comprising ten melee rounds) is shorter than a normal, 10-minute turn in B2 (1979/80) and the similar reference in B1 (1978/79). Notably, the latter passages were altered from the 2nd prints, so it seems plausible that the thinking/guidance might have shifted around that time. Which was right around when AD&D was being developed and released.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 21, 2022 23:16:31 GMT -6
Winding all the way back to the wight/ghoul passage: It seems clear that (unlike wraiths) wights/ghouls must contact enemy in melee (at 1" or touch) to paralyse them, and that the to-be-paralysed figure fights one round of melee. It's not explicit whether a subsequent round of melee would have been in the same turn or the next, or what happens to a paralysed figure in any subsequent melee round, or what "one complete turn" of paralysis really means. It seems to be an ambiguous piece of writing that raises more questions than it answers. Unfortunately, after chewing on it for a few weeks, I don't think we (or at least I) can learn anything new about melee in general from this passage
|
|
|
Post by Mordorandor on Oct 22, 2022 11:21:33 GMT -6
The epiphany I had was that the term round seemed to be a marker for "turns of melee."
How many turns has the game progressed?
10 turns.
In the 11th turn, two units meet and resolve the 1st round of melee.
In the 12th turn, they resolve the 2nd round of melee.
It's a clarifying unit of time, meant only for melee combat, to track where combatants are in the melee, since certain things are predicated on what round it is.
Like, in the 1st round of melee, so-and-so strikes first, but on subsequent rounds, so-and-so strikes first.
(As an aside, I think the duration of spells should remain turns in the full sense of the word. Makes magic that much more useful and impressive. The change to rounds in AD&D nerfs it. And I'll go so far as saying encourages an even more tactical/combat-focused sort of game rather than exploration-centric game.)
|
|
|
Post by Mordorandor on Oct 22, 2022 11:27:28 GMT -6
Winding all the way back to the wight/ghoul passage: It seems clear that (unlike wraiths) wights/ghouls must contact enemy in melee (at 1" or touch) to paralyse them, and that the to-be-paralysed figure fights one round of melee. It's not explicit whether a subsequent round of melee would have been in the same turn or the next, or what happens to a paralysed figure in any subsequent melee round, or what "one complete turn" of paralysis really means. It seems to be an ambiguous piece of writing that raises more questions than it answers. Unfortunately, after chewing on it for a few weeks, I don't think we (or at least I) can learn anything new about melee in general from this passage Turn 532 ... the Wight comes into contact with Joe the Barbarian ... thus begins round 1 of melee. Joe the Barbarian is able to resolve strikes normally this turn/round. Throughout turn 533 ... round 2 of melee ... Joe the Barbarian is paralyzed. If these were units in mass combat, I'd say simply, Wights get to resolve attack rolls, Barbarians, no. I'd lean to saying the same in D&D. The paralysis is simply a "fear-effect," so Joe the Barbarian isn't able to act in any way through the turn sequence (so unable to resolve blows), but Joe isn't helpless enough to be hit without effort, so the Wight must resolve blows still to kill.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 22, 2022 21:00:05 GMT -6
The epiphany I had was that the term round seemed to be a marker for "turns of melee." Umm, this quite different to your assertion above that <<Gary re-purposed the term "turn" to describe the 10-minute exploration move, and re-named the 1-minute Chainmail, combat turn "round" to avoid confusion.>> so I assume we've dropped that idea, and we're discussing something else now? Okay, sure How many turns has the game progressed? 10 turns. In the 11th turn, two units meet and resolve the 1st round of melee. In the 12th turn, they resolve the 2nd round of melee. It's a clarifying unit of time, meant only for melee combat, to track where combatants are in the melee, since certain things are predicated on what round it is. Like, in the 1st round of melee, so-and-so strikes first, but on subsequent rounds, so-and-so strikes first. (As an aside, I think the duration of spells should remain turns in the full sense of the word. Makes magic that much more useful and impressive. The change to rounds in AD&D nerfs it. And I'll go so far as saying encourages an even more tactical/combat-focused sort of game rather than exploration-centric game.) I agree that this usage has a "neat" feel about it, but I take it as a salient observation rather than as primary evidence supporting the one round per turn. E.g.,: presuming one round per turn, THEN it becomes convenient to use the rounds and turn vocabulary this way. Rather than: This rounds and turns vocabulary is really neat, SO there must be one melee round per turn. Generally, I wouldn't assume the mass battle rules are/were shaped by the specific needs of the subsystems such as man-to-man initiative rules, or spell durations in the fantasy supplement or D&D. In my mind, the mass battle rules are their own, stand-alone thing.
|
|
|
Post by Mordorandor on Oct 22, 2022 22:19:22 GMT -6
The epiphany I had was that the term round seemed to be a marker for "turns of melee." Umm, this quite different to your assertion above that “Gary re-purposed the term "turn" to describe the 10-minute exploration move, and re-named the 1-minute Chainmail, combat turn "round" to avoid confusion. 10 turns.” I’m not always the clearest of writers. In my mind, they’re consistent. I’m thinking for Chainmail … Gary uses “turns” to refer to 1-minute periods of game resolution. He uses “rounds” to specifically refer to those turns of resolution that are melee for certain units. For example, 3 turns might have transpired in the game but only 1 round of melee happened between unit A and unit B, which happened in turn 2. If in turn 10 of the game, units C and D begin to melee, then turn 10 is round 1 for these two units. Turn 11 is round 2, etc. Rounds overlap turns. I’m thinking for D&D … Gary appropriates “turns” for 10-minute exploration periods. He also incorporates Chainmail combat by reference. He states melee is fast and furious, that there are 10 rounds of combat in a turn, to ensure players don’t think melee can only occur once every turn, ie., once every 10 minutes. It can happen once a minute, just like Chainmail says. However, those 1-minute resolution periods in Chainmail were called turns, and he’s already reappropriated the term for the 10-minute exploration period. So he leverages the term rounds. Rounds are a subdivision/constituents of turns. D&D rounds are the 1-minute Chainmail turns.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 23, 2022 17:23:37 GMT -6
Gary uses “turns” to refer to 1-minute periods of game resolution. He uses “rounds” to specifically refer to those turns of resolution that are melee for certain units. For example, 3 turns might have transpired in the game but only 1 round of melee happened between unit A and unit B, which happened in turn 2. If in turn 10 of the game, units C and D begin to melee, then turn 10 is round 1 for these two units. Turn 11 is round 2, etc. Rounds overlap turns. As I said above, I agree it's an approachable narrative. But i'm not convinced it's really there in CM. I see CM presenting melee (and therefore melee rounds) as existing within turns. This is evident in the turn sequence, which illustrates melee as one of several turn portions or segments. Likewise, the text continues to refer to the melee portion or segment of the turn. Help me out, but I'm not seeing where CM presents a round as equivalent to or overlapping with a turn. Moreover, the generalisation that there is one round in one turn is not always true. The charge rule says <<Victorious charging units must continue to move out the balance of their charge move...>> (CM3 p15) and the combat example elaborates that <<...if they again contact ... the two units will again melee that turn>> (CM3 p16). This detail was added in CM3. So, while it's a nice model, I think the idea that rounds overlap turns is an imprecise representation of what is actually printed. The D&D discussion is a bit of a sidetrack insofar as this CM topic goes. (That said, you may want to consider S&S, Gygax's 1976 effort to better integrate CM and D&D. On pp17-18 Gygax has 1 to 3 rounds of 1:10 melee per turn, and 3 rounds of 1:1 melee per round of 1:10 melee).
|
|
|
Post by Mordorandor on Oct 24, 2022 0:15:24 GMT -6
Gary uses “turns” to refer to 1-minute periods of game resolution. He uses “rounds” to specifically refer to those turns of resolution that are melee for certain units. For example, 3 turns might have transpired in the game but only 1 round of melee happened between unit A and unit B, which happened in turn 2. If in turn 10 of the game, units C and D begin to melee, then turn 10 is round 1 for these two units. Turn 11 is round 2, etc. Rounds overlap turns. Help me out, but I'm not seeing where CM presents a round as equivalent to or overlapping with a turn. I’ll leverage the Man-to-Man guidelines for some thought experiments. (Mass combat could work too, though Man-to-Man seems a better fit to help highlight the issue.) Thought Experiment AAssume rounds are subunits of turns; thus, there can be multiple rounds of melee in a turn. Assume also a pair of combatants that engage each other in melee. Let’s say Combatant A resolves the first blow in turn 1, round 1, and Combatant B resolves a counter-blow in turn 1, round 1. Assume neither combatant strikes the other. The same happens the second round (turn 1, round 2) … the third round (turn 1, round 3) … the fourth round (turn 1, round 4) … How many rounds of blows are to be resolved before the turn ends? ObservationsThe infinite/indefinite regress is a challenge. With no mention of a mechanic to end the infinite regress. We can't rely on the Morale mechanic, since it doesn't apply. Nothing in our scenario triggers it for these two combatants. Seems odd this wasn’t anticipated. Seems odd that if it was, it wasn’t addressed. Seems even odder that the original intent was to have multiple rounds of melee take place over an indefinite period. Thought Experiment BLet’s now assume another pair of combatants who are unassociated with, and are unaware of, Combatant A and Combatant B. Let’s call them Combatant C and Combatant D. Assume Combatant C and Combatant D engage each other in melee in the same turn as Combatant A and Combatant B. Combatant C kills Combatant D with his very first blow. (Combatant D gets no return blow.) Combatant A and Combatant B conduct an infinite/indefinite number of blows/counter-blows. Is the duration of the turn for Combatant A and Combatant B the same as the duration of the turn for Combatant C and Combatant D? ObservationsBecause Combatant C and Combatant D are unassociated with, and unaware of, Combatant A and Combatant B, the Morale mechanic cannot be used to break the infinite/indefinite regress of blows for Combatant A and Combatant B when Combatant C kills Combatant D. However, even if the infinite/indefinite regress were to end for Combatant A and Combatant B not after 20 rounds, 10 rounds, or 5 rounds, but just a couple of rounds, there’s still a dissonance between the number of blows Combatant A and Combatant B resolved in a 1-minute span of game time vs the number of blows Combatant C and Combatant D resolved. Not to mention the threat to the suspension of disbelief of the actual players of Combatant C and Combatant D as they sit and watch an indefinite number of blows and counter-blows resolved by players of Combatant A and Combatant B. Imagine being told (hopefully it ends, right?) that the melee between Combatant A and Combatant B lasted the same amount of time as the melee between Combatant C and Combatant D. One might argue that the authors/game assumed there would never be a time when Morale was never a component of a battle. Strange, given that there are numerous examples in fantasy literature of duels to the death among pairs of combatants, and the literature is never so homogenous to suggest all of these duels lasted only one minute. It’s hard to believe the authors/game intended to allow there to be time dilation between sets of combatants. CounterpointA counterpoint raised to this understanding of rounds:turn is the section under Charge in Melee that reads, “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 [i.e., by means of a cavalry charge, in which foes break Morale and retreat 1½ moves before melee is engaged] or during the first round of melee,” and its connection to an added sentence in the combat example that reads, “The Heavy Cavalry must continue their charge, if applicable, and if they again contact the Heavy Foot the two units will again melee in that turn.” ObservationsNothing in these passages contradicts the claim of a round being a turn of combat in which melee happens. In fact, this seems to me to corroborate my point. The text of the example-combat specifically says the two units “will again melee in that turn.” It avoids reference to any additional round of melee. Seems this would have been a great place to say, “will melee for another round,” or “will melee for another round that turn.” The way this plays out, given a round is just a turn that has melee in it, is that this is a second melee, with the same unit, still in the same turn, and is still the first round of melee for these two units. This second melee is the closest thing we have to multiple melees in a turn, but it’s not referred to as a round. CounterpointAnother counterpoint to this understanding of round:turn might be the section on Post-Melee Morale that reads, “4. Both sides total the scores arrived at in steps 1-3 above, and the side with the lower total reacts as follows: 0-19 difference - melee continues.” It might seem this means melee continues “in another round, in the same turn.” ObservationsIf that was the case, a turn can never end with two units in contact with each other. The only two possible outcomes being (a) the utter destruction of a unit through indefinite/infinite rounds of melee (see earlier), triggered by endless results of “0-19 melee continues” (the 1-hour long 1-minute turn, if you will) or (b) a move back, retreat, rout, or surrender that separates the two units or removes a unit from play. This is counter-intuitive, given so many other wargames allow for two combating units to remain in contact from turn to turn, and given the questionable implication this might have on how units in historical battles behaved. Were there never two opposing units in historical battles that meleed for more than a minute before one side was killed off, ran off, or subdued? CounterpointAnother counterpoint to this is the observation that "the turn sequence ... illustrates melee as one of several turn portions or segments. Likewise, the text continues to refer to the melee portion or segment of the turn." Observations
Indeed, melee is just one action that happens as part of a turn. We might call them segments. I like to call them phases (of a turn) or even stages. Other actions happen in a turn too, and these are addressed in their own phases/segments. However, melee is the only action that can happen in one turn and not be resolved fully in the same turn. The "engagement" carries over, Missile fire can happen across turns, of course, or even spells, but these kinds of "launches," "projectiles," "slings," or "throws," if you will, have a discreteness about them ("fewer" shots). They are "one and done," while melee is a continuous entity ("less" melee), stretching across turns. It can originate in one turn, and continue into another turn. cf. "... Cavalry not moved during the turn melee was originated ...." Thus, when tracking melee, we need to know how many turns it's lasted. And to call this uniquely continuous part of the game out, it was called a round. "How many turns of melee" have these two units fought becomes, "How many rounds have these two units fought?" Rounds refer only to turns in which engaged foes have conducted melee (an exchange of blow/counter-blow).
ConclusionFor me, there’s a preponderance of evidence that “round” is a term to refer to a turn in which the resolution of melee occurs. It allows one to capture a continuous activity across a definitive period of equal duration for all combatants, in all frames of reference.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Oct 24, 2022 7:08:34 GMT -6
After re-reading the passages containing rounds, it's pretty clear to me that: - "turns" are global, for example, an entire game is played over a number turns
- "turns" are made up of several portions according to the Turn Sequence
- "rounds" are local, for example, after getting into melee range, the first round of melee occurs between the engaged units. If neither is destroyed or otherwise out of combat, melee continues in the 2nd round during the next turn.
(If another unit becomes engaged while a melee is on-going, the first two units may be in round 2 or later, while the new unit will be in round 1 of melee. That's important when considering Fatigue.)
- each round can contain several "blows" (attacks / attack rolls) if weapon class is low enough (p. 26):
Edit: Addition, concerning Wight paralysis - "If they touch a normal figure during melee, it becomes paralyzed and remains so for one complete turn. A paralyzed figure is considered to be able to strike a blow at the Wight just prior to paralysis taking effect, so melee can occur but only one round." The Wight engages a normal figure in melee. Both strike a blow in round 1, then paralysis takes effect, melee ends. Because the turn is already running, the figure will be paralysed for the entire next turn. Afterwards, paralysis ends. For example, the Wight engages a normal figure in turn 3. Round 1 of melee begins. The Wight attacks/touches the normal figure, strikes a blow. The normal figure strikes a blow. Paralysis takes effect. Melee ends. In turn 4 the Wight can do whatever (e.g. attack the paralysed victim), the normal figure is paralysed for the entire turn. In turn 5, the normal figure can act again (if still alive). Another melee might occur between Wight and normal figure, again starting at round 1.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Oct 24, 2022 7:24:54 GMT -6
Similar example with Sprites (p.29):
In turn X, Spites engage an enemy unit. Round 1 of melee begins, the Sprites attack. The target cannot harm the Sprites during this round.
In turn X+1, the Sprites' surprise wears off. Round 2 of melee begins and both Sprites and enemy can strike a blow.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 24, 2022 16:43:43 GMT -6
The way this plays out, given a round is just a turn that has melee in it, is that this is a second melee, with the same unit, still in the same turn, and is still the first round of melee for these two units. This second melee is the closest thing we have to multiple melees in a turn, but it’s not referred to as a round. This is the conundrum I attempted to draw your attention to in my previous post; that I have difficulty with a "round" that is a turn containing one or two "rounds" of melee. If you are arguing that the second exchange of blows in a turn is not a round of melee, then what do you propose it is? Please help me to understand your case clearly Mordorandor. Firstly, do you concur that: 1) A turn contains segments/portions?
2) One of the turn segments/portions is the melee segment/portion? 3) During the melee segment/portion of the turn one, or possibly two, rounds of blows are exchanged? Then, given your answers to 1, 2, and 3 above, are your proposing that the term "round" refers to:
A. Only a round of blows exchanged during the melee segment of a turn.
B. Both a round of blows exchanged during the melee segment of a turn, AND a turn in which there are one or two exchanges of blows between units during the melee segment. C. Only a turn in which there are one or two exchanges of blows between units during the melee segment. D. Something else?
That would be helpful
|
|
|
Post by Mordorandor on Oct 24, 2022 19:05:50 GMT -6
This is the conundrum I (attempted to) draw your attention to in my previous post; that I have difficulty with a "round" that is a turn containing one or two "rounds" of melee. If you are arguing that the second exchange of blows in a turn is not a round of melee, then what do you propose it is? hamurai and I seem to have a very similar, if not identical, view of the relation of rounds to turns. Re: the cavalry charge, I'd say the second instance, if you will, is really just a continuation of the initial melee, the entire procedural of melee-victory-retreat-pursuit/charge-reengagement being the totality of melee that occurs between the two units in that turn, and ultimately constituting the first round of melee for those two units. Yes? ... I mean ... Yes, the turn is segmented into phases of actions. Yes, one of the phases of a turn is the melee phase. Yes, during the melee phase, one exchange of blow/counter-blow happens. There is a turn, such that in that turn, there is a phase, the melee phase, and in that phase, there is one exchange of blow/counter-blow between two combatants [let's keep it simple for now, since weapon class can make the single blow/counter-blows into sets of multiple blows], such that the exchange is the round, and thus, when the resolution of that exchange is done, so to is the round, and so too the turn. One might say, well, it certainly isn't the case that the WHOLE turn is the exchange/round of blows in the melee phase. It is the melee phase itself that is the round. Well, ok, fine. The blow/counter-blow exchange, and not the turn, is the round, if you will. Still, what we have is, if the first such exchange happens in turn 3, then the first round happens in turn 3, and it takes getting to turn 4 to get to the second such exchange. Thus ... In turn 5, in the melee phase, a blow/counter-blow exchange occurs between pair 1 ... the turn is round 1 for that pair of combatants In turn 6, in the melee phase, a blow/counter-blow exchange occurs between pair 1 ... the turn is round 2 for that pair of combatants In turn 6, in the melee phase, a blow/counter-blow exchange occurs between pair 2 ... the turn is round 1 for that pair of combatants In turn 7, in the melee phase, a blow/counter-blow exchange occurs between pair 1 ... the turn is round 3 for that pair of combatants In turn 7, in the melee phase, a blow/counter-blow exchange occurs between pair 2 ... the turn is round 2 for that pair of combatants In turn 7, in the melee phase, a blow/counter-blow exchange occurs between pair 3 ... the turn is round 1 for that pair of combatants Now, you may say, but yes, and so, this second melee, this second exchange, when the cavalry charge has the horse units "again melee" ... what about that? Isn't that a second exchange, a second round? Perhaps. And I'd retort, "Bah! I play the 2nd printing of Chainmail, that canonical and catholic tome, whereof the saints are free from the heresy of such nonsense and the point-value for the Bow figure was a divine value of 2.5 and not that heathen-interpreted value of 3!"
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 24, 2022 20:00:08 GMT -6
So... I still don't know which of these you are arguing Mordorandor. Then, given your answers to 1, 2, and 3 above, are your proposing that the term "round" refers to:
A. Only a round of blows exchanged during the melee segment of a turn.
B. Both a round of blows exchanged during the melee segment of a turn, AND a turn in which there are one or two exchanges of blows between units during the melee segment. C. Only a turn in which there are one or two exchanges of blows between units during the melee segment. D. Something else?
I suspect the prevailing view may be A. And that you may be suggesting B or C or D, but please clarify for me.
|
|
|
Post by Mordorandor on Oct 24, 2022 20:10:48 GMT -6
So... I still don't know which of these you are arguing Mordorandor. A. One round of blow/counter-blow in the melee phase. In a two-person melee, where each combatant resolves a single blow. Let’s start there.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 24, 2022 21:29:20 GMT -6
Um, sure. Seemed to me you were previously arguing for C: For me, there’s a preponderance of evidence that “round” is a term to refer to a turn in which the resolution of melee occurs. Whereas now you're saying A: A. One round of blow/counter-blow in the melee phase. So, I guess that's all done and dusted.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Oct 24, 2022 22:40:34 GMT -6
hamurai and I seem to have a very similar, if not identical, view of the relation of rounds to turns. Seems so, yes! Maybe if we analyze some more we'll lose that (See below!) Re: the cavalry charge, I'd say the second instance, if you will, is really just a continuation of the initial melee, the entire procedural of melee-victory-retreat-pursuit/charge-reengagement being the totality of melee that occurs between the two units in that turn, and ultimately constituting the first round of melee for those two units. No: (Emphasis by me.) I think this clearly shows that each exchange of blows is considered its own round of melee, so in this case we may get several rounds of melee per turn. Now, you may say, but yes, and so, this second melee, this second exchange, when the cavalry charge has the horse units "again melee" ... what about that? Isn't that a second exchange, a second round? Perhaps. And I'd retort, "Bah! I play the 2nd printing of Chainmail... I only have the 3rd printing of CM, by the way.
|
|
|
Post by Mordorandor on Oct 25, 2022 8:56:15 GMT -6
hamurai, we're not so different, you and me, considering we're speaking across two printings/variations.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 29, 2023 19:17:32 GMT -6
Going back to the Domesday Book version of the game, there are no Fatigue rules. However, the original text that would become the post melee morale rules explains turns versus rounds: "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 counted. 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." It the continues with what happens to the loser, "The loser of the melee will retreat his troops one normal move, backs to the enemy..." Starting with Chainmail 1e, Post Melee Morale rules, step 4, "0-19 difference — melee continues", sadly was missing the part that explains when melee continues, which according to the original rules states: "the melee will continue next turn, and on all subsequent turns until a sufficient difference in totals is arrived at." Gawds. It surely wouldn't have been difficult to include melee continues next turn in CM!
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Jun 29, 2023 21:30:14 GMT -6
Going back to the Domesday Book version of the game, there are no Fatigue rules. However, the original text that would become the post melee morale rules explains turns versus rounds: "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 counted. 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." It the continues with what happens to the loser, "The loser of the melee will retreat his troops one normal move, backs to the enemy..." Starting with Chainmail 1e, Post Melee Morale rules, step 4, "0-19 difference — melee continues", sadly was missing the part that explains when melee continues, which according to the original rules states: "the melee will continue next turn, and on all subsequent turns until a sufficient difference in totals is arrived at." Gawds. It surely wouldn't have been difficult to include melee continues next turn in CM! You're making the assumption that this wasn't an intentional rules change between Domesday Book and CM. Personally, I think it's an improvement on account of making battles more dynamic - in some wargames, "tar pitting" the other player's best units for multiple turns is a boring but effective strategy. Particularly with CM's high movement rates per turn, it would become trivially easy to set up flank and rear attacks against units that were stuck in place for multiple turns. In the CM rules example, it's also explicit that if the Heavy Foot fall back in good order and the Heavy Cavalry continue their charge and come into contact once more, that they will fight another round of melee during the same turn. It seems absolutely nonsensical to me that multiple rounds of melee would be allowable in this case, but not in the case where the morale result is "melee continues."
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 30, 2023 0:22:41 GMT -6
Just suggesting that a lot of ambiguity could easily have been avoided by specifying when melee continues; either this turn or next turn. Two additional words is all that would have been required, either way.
Yes, there are a couple of specific circumstances were melee clearly continues in the same turn, as discussed up thread.
The possibility of an intentional change is also discussed near the beginning of this topic. Part of the issue is, how many readers these days would have first read the Domesday version and then recognised it as an intentional change? Probably very few indeed.
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Jun 30, 2023 8:19:59 GMT -6
Gawds. It surely wouldn't have been difficult to include melee continues next turn in CM! You're making the assumption that this wasn't an intentional rules change between Domesday Book and CM. Personally, I think it's an improvement on account of making battles more dynamic - in some wargames, "tar pitting" the other player's best units for multiple turns is a boring but effective strategy. Particularly with CM's high movement rates per turn, it would become trivially easy to set up flank and rear attacks against units that were stuck in place for multiple turns. In the CM rules example, it's also explicit that if the Heavy Foot fall back in good order and the Heavy Cavalry continue their charge and come into contact once more, that they will fight another round of melee during the same turn. It seems absolutely nonsensical to me that multiple rounds of melee would be allowable in this case, but not in the case where the morale result is "melee continues." Just a reminder that Chainmail 1e was missing the man-to-man missile fire table and the entry for giants. Things were left out clearly by accident. Noting "next turn" mistakenly being left out (like the sections above) when expanding the post melee morale check, allows other parts of the rules to fall into place. While maintaining melee is handled like Risk requires handwaving those parts of the rules. Lastly, this was at a time when Gary's thing was to take other people's games and rules and "expand and improve" them. The emphasis is on expand, adding more rules, optional rules, more detail. Gary's revision of the post melee morale rules is a perfect example from this period.
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Jun 30, 2023 8:39:16 GMT -6
Just suggesting that a lot of ambiguity could easily have been avoided by specifying when melee continues; either this turn or next turn. Two additional words is all that would have been required, either way. Yes, there are a couple of specific circumstances were melee clearly continues in the same turn, as discussed up thread. The possibility of an intentional change is also discussed near the beginning of this topic. Part of the issue is, how many readers these days would have first read the Domesday version and then recognised it as an intentional change? Probably very few indeed. Agreed. While there is room for some improvement through reorganizing and little bit of editing (e.g., movement at the beginning and terrain effects on movement are at the end), the original L.G.T.S.A. version of the rules is clean and concise. I would to be surprised if there are other areas that might be cleared up through it. Agreed. Impetus, getting to continue to attack, often with moving into the space just cleared and attacking again is likely the source of the "cleave" rules in RPGs. They are absolutely in the rules under certain conditions. I played a Napoleonic miniatures game a few months back and charged on horse, and got to mow down Prussians, it was glorious and I paid in fatigue. That also did not mean infantry melee went into multiple rounds per turn in that rule set, a newer rule set. This is intriguing. This version of Chainmail was published with some possible small variations in the Domesday Book, Spartan International and Panzerfaust. The latter likely having the largest readership. The rules were mentioned in George Phillies's wargame periodic index and Gary sent copies of that issue of the Domesday Book to other clubs and wargaming luminaries, like Tom Shaw at AH. So it is interesting that even by 1971 or 1972, when Chainmail would have been sold to folks like Tim Kask or Mentzer, they might not have knowns about the version printed in the Domesday Book, Spartan International and Panzerfaust—which is the version some people call the first edition when they talk about the first edition of Chainmail not having a fantasy supplement. This gap in implicit knowledge, which Len Lekofka calls out as a problem with the Chainmail rules assumed knowledge, which would only grow over time.
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Jul 1, 2023 8:03:55 GMT -6
Just a reminder that Chainmail 1e was missing the man-to-man missile fire table and the entry for giants. Things were left out clearly by accident. Noting "next turn" mistakenly being left out (like the sections above) when expanding the post melee morale check, allows other parts of the rules to fall into place. While maintaining melee is handled like Risk requires handwaving those parts of the rules. Lastly, this was at a time when Gary's thing was to take other people's games and rules and "expand and improve" them. The emphasis is on expand, adding more rules, optional rules, more detail. Gary's revision of the post melee morale rules is a perfect example from this period. Those omissions were fixed in later printings, but "next turn" was never added into any subsequent printing. I'm not sure how having melee across multiple turns qualifies as expanding the rules or adding more detail compared to having multiple rounds of melee within the same turn - it seems to me like they're two alternatives with equal amounts of complexity, I don't really see either possibility gaining credibility based solely on Gary's penchant for baroque rules. I'd like to know what other rules you think need to be handwaved if melee can continue for multiple rounds in a single turn, as I've never run into any such issues. On the other hand, if melee can last across multiple turns, there's a significant gap in the rules that you have to fill in yourself - namely, that nowhere does it mention any rule to the effect of "units continuing a melee from the previous turn may not move," nor does it take the alternative approach of providing rules for ordering a unit to voluntarily disengage from melee in its next movement phase.
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Jul 1, 2023 14:16:01 GMT -6
I'm not sure how having melee across multiple turns qualifies as expanding the rules or adding more detail compared to having multiple rounds of melee within the same turn - it seems to me like they're two alternatives with equal amounts of complexity, I don't really see either possibility gaining credibility based solely on Gary's penchant for baroque rules. I'd like to know what other rules you think need to be handwaved if melee can continue for multiple rounds in a single turn, as I've never run into any such issues. On the other hand, if melee can last across multiple turns, there's a significant gap in the rules that you have to fill in yourself - namely, that nowhere does it mention any rule to the effect of "units continuing a melee from the previous turn may not move," nor does it take the alternative approach of providing rules for ordering a unit to voluntarily disengage from melee in its next movement phase. I'm not following what you are saying any more. The above seems to have lost the thread. For example, no one is saying "having melee across multiple turns qualifies as expanding the rules."
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jul 1, 2023 14:38:00 GMT -6
Desparil: In case you haven't seen it, upthread ( here) there's an example of Chainmail combat written by Gygax in 1975 where the post-melee result is 14 (i.e., "melee continues" on the "Post Melee Morale" table), but Gygax states that the melee continues in the next turn rather than being immediately resolved by further rounds.
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Jul 1, 2023 15:51:26 GMT -6
Desparil : In case you haven't seen it, upthread ( here) there's an example of Chainmail combat written by Gygax in 1975 where the post-melee result is 14 (i.e., "melee continues" on the "Post Melee Morale" table), but Gygax states that the melee continues in the next turn rather than being immediately resolved by further rounds. Now see, this would have been a good argument to lead with.
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Jul 2, 2023 23:28:21 GMT -6
I apologize if someone already mentioned this somewhere upthread, or if I'm stepping on toes at all, but I just wanted to make sure we understand that the idea of there being a single "combat round/phase" in each game turn, but under specific circumstances a victorious unit who charges through or routes an enemy is forced to conduct a second round of combat immediately if it reestablishes contact, is nothing extraordinary in miniatures wargames and predates Chainmail. WRG Ancients certainly included it in 1969, and indeed it seems so perennially ingrained a concept that I would be surprised if it didn't show up in all of the earliest published rules.
|
|