|
Post by Malchor on Dec 29, 2020 18:55:22 GMT -6
Under the Roc listing in Chainmail we find: “Against normal troops, Rocs as four Light Horse and defend as four Heavy Horse.”
OK, that one is easy, but what about this? “They require cumulative hits equal to a number sufficient to kill Heavy Horse to be killed themselves.”
Anyone know where the number of cumulative hits to kill a Heavy Horse is? Was under the impression all standard mass combat figures are one hit to kill.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Dec 29, 2020 19:21:02 GMT -6
Stormcrow speculated in this thread that the sentence was missing the word "four", i.e.: "They require cumulative hits equal to a number sufficient to kill four Heavy Horse to be killed themselves". Or perhaps: "They require four cumulative hits equal to a number sufficient to kill Heavy Horse to be killed themselves". That would be consistent with the rules for Ogres and Giants, correct?
|
|
|
Post by increment on Dec 29, 2020 19:33:03 GMT -6
PatW agrees (p335 fn 221).
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Dec 29, 2020 22:52:20 GMT -6
Looking at the Roc again, unless I am missing a place that shows cumulative hits for Heavy Horse, I am thinking this was an error that was never fixed. Perhaps it was meant to be Hero-type.
Edit: Oop, this sat written, but not submitted for a while, as I search Chainmail again. Seems to mostly agree with the above comments.
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Dec 29, 2020 23:06:24 GMT -6
Stormcrow speculated in this thread that the sentence was missing the word "four", i.e.: "They require cumulative hits equal to a number sufficient to kill four Heavy Horse to be killed themselves". Or perhaps: "They require four cumulative hits equal to a number sufficient to kill Heavy Horse to be killed themselves". That would be consistent with the rules for Ogres and Giants, correct? Perhaps. I’m stating to wonder about Gygax’s use of “simultaneous,” cumulative” and “accumulated .” If this was meant to be synonymous or purposefully different. Havint the number of hits needed to kill equal the number of forces a fantasy figure can fight as is elegant. Having some need “simultaneous” hits and other “accumulated” and “cumulative” hits is less elegant, though it may serve a purpose.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Dec 30, 2020 17:10:13 GMT -6
Malchor increment derv waysoftheearthThis has raised in my mind a very basic question about mass combat. Having only played Chainmail at Gary Con, I realized I don't know the answer to this. Rocs "attack as four Light Horse" and "defend as four Heavy Horse". Let's say that 4 Heavy Horse figures move up and initiate an attack against a Roc that has landed (for whatever reason). To resolve the melee, each side gets to roll a number of dice, determined by consulting APPENDIX B: COMBAT TABLES The attacking Heavy Horse clearly consult the "Heavy Horse vs" table, using the line versus "Heavy Horse" (what the Roc defends as), which shows that they get "1 die per man", with each "6" on a die indicating a kill. Since there are 4 Heavy Horse, they get 4 dice to roll, so they can score up to 4 kills (1 for each "6" rolled). If they get 4 kills, the Roc is dead. Now my question is: which Combat Table does the Roc use to determine how many dice it rolls for the counterattack? (A) Does the Roc use the "Light Horse vs" table because it always attacks as "four Light Horse"? Which would mean "1 dice per three man" against Heavy Horse, or only 1 die because the Roc is equal to 4 Light Horse? (B) Or does the Roc use "Heavy Foot vs" table because the opponent initiated the attack, and therefore the Roc is defending itself as "Heavy Horse"? Which would mean "1 dice per man" against Heavy Horse, or 4 total because the Roc is equal to 4 Heavy Horse?
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Dec 30, 2020 19:33:01 GMT -6
Malchor increment derv waysoftheearth This has raised in my mind a very basic question about mass combat. Having only played Chainmail at Gary Con, I realized I don't know the answer to this. Rocs "attack as four Light Horse" and "defend as four Heavy Horse". Let's say that 4 Heavy Horse figures move up and initiate an attack against a Roc that has landed (for whatever reason). To resolve the melee, each side gets to roll a number of dice, determined by consulting APPENDIX B: COMBAT TABLES The attacking Heavy Horse clearly consult the "Heavy Horse vs" table, using the line versus "Heavy Horse" (what the Roc defends as), which shows that they get "1 die per man", with each "6" on a die indicating a kill. Since there are 4 Heavy Horse, they get 4 dice to roll, so they can score up to 4 kills (1 for each "6" rolled). If they get 4 kills, the Roc is dead. Now my question is: which Combat Table does the Roc use to determine how many dice it rolls for the counterattack? (A) Does the Roc use the "Light Horse vs" table because it always attacks as "four Light Horse"? Which would mean "1 dice per three man" against Heavy Horse, or only 1 die because the Roc is equal to 4 Light Horse? (B) Or does the Roc use "Heavy Foot vs" table because the opponent initiated the attack, and therefore the Roc is defending itself as "Heavy Horse"? Which would mean "1 dice per man" against Heavy Horse, or 4 total because the Roc is equal to 4 Heavy Horse? I believe A is correct in this case.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Dec 30, 2020 19:40:02 GMT -6
Roc would attack in melee as 4 LH vs. HH thereby getting 1 die, 6 kills, per melee round.
I long ago concluded that the Fantasy Supplement was written primarily for the Mass Combat System at 1:1 scale. What is sometimes overlooked when considering how things are worded in entries like the Roc is the implications for missile fire. Since a Roc defends and takes hits as Heavy Horse, it would receive normal missile fire as "fully armored". Missile fire is what can be devastating to figures like Rocs that take cumulative hits. It is even more important against figures like Heroes and Supers that take simultaneous (concurrent) hits to kill. These can be nigh impossible to kill by normal troops in melee. Heavy Horse figures would obviously have the best chance.
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Dec 30, 2020 20:47:47 GMT -6
Roc would attack in melee as 4 LH vs. HH thereby getting 1 die, 6 kills, per melee round. That is two votes for A. I long ago concluded that the Fantasy Supplement was written primarily for the Mass Combat System at 1:1 scale. What is sometimes overlooked when considering how things are worded in entries like the Roc is the implications for missile fire. Since a Roc defends and takes hits as Heavy Horse, it would receive normal missile fire as "fully armored". Missile fire is what can be devastating to figures like Rocs that take cumulative hits. It is even more important against figures like Heroes and Supers that take simultaneous (concurrent) hits to kill. These can be nigh impossible to kill by normal troops in melee. Heavy Horse figures would obviously have the best chance. Still not sold on the idea that the Fantasy Supplement was written for the Mass Combat System at 1:1 scale, but that's me. First, note that "man" often means figure in Chainmail—unless we are going with a roster system, like WRG, which people seem adamant is not the case. With that in mind, we need to consider when we see "man" or "men" if it is referring to a man/men or a figure/figures. I believe the FS was meant to mirror the rest of Chainmail, with both 1:20 mass combat and 1:1 skirmish. In mass combat, a hero, super-hero, wizard, etc. are treated like a commander in standard mass combat. One of the figures represents a personage, as does the commander, but the figure does not represent one human, rather it is the commander and their retinue—same for a hero, supper-hero, etc. When a skirmish is desired then the man-to-man and FCT are used. Additionally, if two figures found on the FCT come into contact, you can switch scale and use the FTC for an on-the-battle-field Mano-a-Mano spectacle. In fact, there is no reason you could not do this with regular mass combat between two commanders when their figures come into contact, switching to a joust and/or man-to-man, if desired. U&W, SR, and Panzerfaust all show the use of Chainmail FS for 1:20 mass combat or mixed scale. If there is one theme in Chainmail's design, it is flexibility in what the players want. Want to have a Samurai versus Swiss Landsknecht battle, you can. Want an Early Middle Ages versus Later Middle Ages troops battle, you can. Want Mongols with a Wizard versus a Balrog battle, you can. Want to have a bunch of troops fight a yeti, pick the set of troops closes to what you want and a fantasy creature that is closest to your idea of a Yeti with any medications and have at it. Want to play Saint George versus the Dragon as a 1:1 battle, you can. This is Chainmail's strength, and Chainmail's weakness —with flexibility comes complexity, the challenge of explaining multiple systems and how and when to use them.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Dec 30, 2020 23:09:56 GMT -6
Yes, Chainmail is flexible and people should feel free to play it as they like, as well as experiment. But, it's a little more then what a person thinks a "man" represents that led me to conclude that the Fantasy Supplement was primarily written for the Mass Combat System at 1:1. And, of course, proposed manners of play should be tested through actual play. Some things sound good but prove to be rather clunky at the table.
Things worth looking at are how Chainmail developed as a rule set, the siege rules, how magic weapons interface with the rules, and the point system. Elves are a worthwhile study as well.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Dec 31, 2020 0:09:18 GMT -6
I concur with the wiser heads above; it’s A for me. Option B had never really occurred to me until now.
|
|
|
Post by cometaryorbit on Dec 31, 2020 0:18:09 GMT -6
Stormcrow speculated in this thread that the sentence was missing the word "four", i.e.: "They require cumulative hits equal to a number sufficient to kill four Heavy Horse to be killed themselves". Or perhaps: "They require four cumulative hits equal to a number sufficient to kill Heavy Horse to be killed themselves". That would be consistent with the rules for Ogres and Giants, correct? Perhaps. I’m stating to wonder about Gygax’s use of “simultaneous,” cumulative” and “accumulated .” If this was meant to be synonymous or purposefully different. Havint the number of hits needed to kill equal the number of forces a fantasy figure can fight as is elegant. Having some need “simultaneous” hits and other “accumulated” and “cumulative” hits is less elegant, though it may serve a purpose. I would think "simultaneous" and "cumulative" would have to be different. "Accumulated" vs "cumulative" is probably synonymous though (OD&D uses "Accumulative Hits" - I think the terminology was not really standardized for a while!)
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Dec 31, 2020 5:59:07 GMT -6
[I would think "simultaneous" and "cumulative" would have to be different. "Accumulated" vs "cumulative" is probably synonymous though (OD&D uses "Accumulative Hits" - I think the terminology was not really standardized for a while!) I agree with you, including the part about “not really standardized.” Looking back at Patt’s Middle Earth rules, Patt makes clear in both the Wizard and Hero section that hits on those figures are not cumulative—that does lack some context as we do not know the system used. The preceding is that 20 kill points scored in a melee round will kill a Wizard, then mentions that points are not cumulative—the context of the last part depends on if the NEWA system used a roster or not. “Simultaneous” in the right context can be used for “not cumulative,” that makes sense. I’m not advocating for an interpretation, just wondering about the use of accumulate and cumulative later for ogres and rocs. Was it intentionally different or not.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jan 1, 2021 14:56:59 GMT -6
I concur with the wiser heads above; it’s A for me. Option B had never really occurred to me until now. Good to see some consensus here. Thanks, all. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't overlooking something obvious. The following rule for Cavalry seems to agree that defending & counterattacking when attacked (returning casualties) can have split values: "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." So essentially, in every melee, each side gets to roll for an attack using their "attack as" rating (which determines the table they use), and the other side defends from that attack using their "defends as" rating on the appropriate table. Typically the two values are the same, but certain conditions can cause the two to be different, and certain monsters have different ratings for each. "Attack as" is somewhat analogous to HD in D&D, and "Defend as" is somewhat analogous to Armor Class (but also assumes elements of fighting capability). * * * * * Okay, further questions: A Wizard "In normal combat, all this class will fight as two Armored Foot, or two Medium Horse if mounted..." Question #1: By "fight", does this mean the Wizard both attacks as Armored Foot (using the "Armored Foot vs" table) and defends as Armored Foot? So if attacked by 2 Heavy Foot, a Wizard (unmounted) would use the "Armored Foot vs" table vs. Heavy Foot, getting two dice, with a 5 or 6 killing. And the 2 Heavy Foot would in return use the "Heavy Foot vs" table vs Armored Foot, getting 1 die per two men, here 1 die, with a 6 killing. Question #2: If the Wizard defends as two Armored Foot, are two "kills" needed to defeat them? In our example, do the Heavy Foot defeat the Wizard with 1 or 2 "kills" (scores of 6)? Possible answers: (1) 1 hit, because that is the assumed default for any single figure unless otherwise specifically called out, such as for Rocs or Heroes. In this case, the "two Armored Foot" refers solely to "attack as" and "defend as" values, and does not increase their ability to take "kills". (2) 2 hits, because it is assumed that if a figure fights as "two X", e.g., "two Armored Foot", that it will require two "kills" as if it were two figures. If (2), are the two hits required to be cumulative (like Rocs) or simultaneous (like Heroes)?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jan 1, 2021 17:03:13 GMT -6
By the book, it is probably:
#1. Yes, "fights-as" implies both attacks- and defends-as unless specified otherwise. #2. No, it is not explicit that multiple kills are required to remove a wizard in normal combat (e.g., per Heroes, Giants, Lycanthropes...). Moreover, that CM doesn't specify whether simultaneous or cumulative kills are required implies again that multiple kills are not required. Therefore 1 kill removes the wizard figure.
However, my preferred "interpretation" is to give Wizards a bit more shtick in normal combat:
#2. Yes, two simultaneous kills are required to remove a single wizard figure in normal combat.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 1, 2021 18:40:00 GMT -6
A consistent pattern in Chainmail with figures given a number of men equivalency is that they take an equal number of hits to kill in normal combat. The exception is those who are stated to be impervious to normal attacks.
The wizard is said to be "impervious to normal missile fire" only. But, it is not explicit in whether it is impervious to normal melee or if it would otherwise take cumulative or simultaneous hits. The closest comparison to the wizard is the wraith who is also listed as fighting as 2 AF or 2 MH, but is said to be "impervious to all save magic weapons or combat by other fantastic creatures".
On the Fantasy Combat Table comparatively the wizard seems to fall between the hero and superhero in strength.
Hero vs Hero 7, vs Super 10, vs Wizard 11 (vs Wraith 11) Super vs Hero 5, vs Super 8, vs Wizard 9 (vs Wraith 8) Wizard vs Hero 8, vs Super 10, vs Wizard 10 (vs Wraith 5)
Wraith vs Hero 8, vs Super 10, vs Wizard 12 (vs Wraith 7)
So, my inclination is that they would require two simultaneous hits to kill in normal melee. This is also how I've run them.
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Jan 1, 2021 23:49:35 GMT -6
So, my inclination is that they would require two simultaneous hits to kill in normal melee. This is also how I've run them. Curious, would you include ogres and Rocs in the above? I’m starting to think the number of hit for all multiples of type require simultaneous hits, or at the least enough hits in a turn to equal a kill. Or at least that may he how I interpret it.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 2, 2021 7:15:44 GMT -6
Curious, would you include ogres and Rocs in the above? No, cumulative I’m starting to think the number of hit for all multiples of type require simultaneous hits, or at the least enough hits in a turn to equal a kill. So, there's a few things that people might interpret/use differently in this regard. It boils down to how you view the the turn and why you think Gary and Jeff may have chosen the terms "simultaneous" and "cumulative". First, there is vague language of "hits to kill" in the Fantasy Supplement. This is a precursor of hit points reflected in the number of men a figure is equivalent to. It's basically a way of making a figure more resilient at the table. It's a way of adding variability into the game, but it's not really the same thing as hit points in D&D. In this regard, it is harder to accomplish simultaneous hits than slowly accumulate hits to kill a figure. Cumulative hits can be achieved turn to turn, round to round, and in separate parts of the turn sequence. Simultaneous hits might allow for some refs to be a little more flexible or rigid in their application. A rigid interpretation is that all hits must occur in a particular part of the sequence and in a single round. A more lenient approach might allow hits over multiple rounds in a single turn. The most lenient is to allow the effects of the entire turn sequence to count (artillery, missiles, and multi rounds of melee), but not carry over to the next turn. I tend to lean towards a more rigid approach with simultaneous hits. In the wizards case, two simultaneous hits in normal melee is incredibly difficult to achieve on a figure that throws fire balls or lightening bolts, can turn invisible, and is impervious to normal missiles.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 2, 2021 7:21:22 GMT -6
Zenopus are you preparing to run a game of Chainmail?
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jan 2, 2021 10:31:17 GMT -6
derv: No, I don't have any specific plans. It was mostly Malchor's question that got me looking at and thinking about the rules. But the Scrum Club did play Chainmail last year (I missed the game), and one member has expressed interest in cloning the rules, so I am interested in understanding the rules better. Historically, I've been much more of an RPGer than a wargamer.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Jan 2, 2021 11:01:19 GMT -6
Synthesizing the rules in view of the above comments, one might sort of think of the general categories for normal (mass) combat:
Normal figures: A unit of these attacks based on the number of figures in the unit, and each hit ("kill") removes one figure from the unit, so removing the entire unit requires cumulative kills. The number of dice they use when attacking decreases as figures in the unit are removed.
Examples: Humans (A/D: per arms, e.g., Light Foot); Dwarves (A/D: per arms, half-casualties from large figures); Elves (A/D: per arms, with bonus dice versus Goblins/Orcs); Goblins (A/D: per arms (typically Light Foot?), -1 on rolls in full light); Wights (A: 1 Light Horse (-1 on rolls in full light), D: 1 Heavy Horse, impervious to normal missile fire, paralyze normal figures after 1 melee).
Large figures: Each large figure attacks as multiple normals (i.e., attacks using a specified number of multiple dice), and requires cumulative hits ("kills") to be removed from the table. The number of dice they use when attacking does not decrease as hits accumulate.
Examples: Ogres (A/D: 6 Heavy Foot); Giants (A: 12 Heavy Foot, D: 12 Armored Foot); Rocs (A: 4 Heavy Horse, D: 4 Light Horse)
Multi-Fighter figures: Each multi-fighter figure attacks as multiple normals (i.e., attacks using multiple dice), but requires simultaneous hits ("kills") to be removed from the table. The number of dice they use when attacking does not ever change.
Examples: Heroes (A/D: 4 normals of any type), Super Heroes (A/D: 8 normals of any type), Lycanthropes (A: 4 Armored Foot, D: 4 Heavy Foot, double these in/near woods).
Impervious figures: Each impervious figure attacks as multiple normals (i.e., attacks using multiple dice), but is immune to hits ("kills") in normal (mass) combat.
Examples: Ents (A: 6 Armored Foot), Dragons (A: 4 Heavy Horse), Elementals (A: 4 Light-Heavy Horse), Wraith (A: 2 Armored Foot or 2 Medium Horse)
Ambiguous:
Wizards (A/D: 2 Armored Foot or 2 Medium Horse). Impervious to normal missile fire. Normal melee not specified.
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Jan 2, 2021 12:25:43 GMT -6
I’m starting to think the number of hit for all multiples of type require simultaneous hits, or at the least enough hits in a turn to equal a kill. So, there's a few things that people might interpret/use differently in this regard. It boils down to how you view the the turn and why you think Gary and Jeff may have chosen the terms "simultaneous" and "cumulative". Absolutely, players can run it how they like. On the intent of the designer(s), I'm still on the fence. About Perren, are we certain he was involved in the Fantasy Supplement? Then again, that is another topic. I’m starting to think the number of hit for all multiples of type require simultaneous hits, or at the least enough hits in a turn to equal a kill. First, there is vague language of "hits to kill" in the Fantasy Supplement. This is a precursor of hit points reflected in the number of men a figure is equivalent to. It's basically a way of making a figure more resilient at the table. It's a way of adding variability into the game, but it's not really the same thing as hit points in D&D. derv , where is "hits to kill" or are you paraphrasing? As you point out multiple hits here are not the same as D&D. In this case, it is better to look back at other contemporary rules sets, and those that precede and where widely known, as multiple hits to take down a figure were nothing new. Here are a few off the top of my head: - Totten's system used blocks representing multiple men and used a roster system with the force strength/health marked right on the block, so we know the Twin City gamers knew of these concepts.
- There was mention of a roster system for trays of figures.
- Joe Morschauser wrote about a humanized roster systems with every figure counting hits.
- In Siege of Bodenburg there were figures that could take multiple hits per figure (Of note, Siege of Bodenburg also included Landsknechte).
- War Games Research Group in the UK published War Games Rules 1000 B.C to 500 A.D, 1st Edition, in February 1969 (2nd Edition, July 1969) which also has a roster system.
More importantly, Leonard Patt's "Rules for Middle Earth" was the direct source of multiple hits in Chainmail via Wizards, Heroes and Antiheroes, specifically:Wizards:- "In a melee, the enemy must score 20 point kills in one round to kill a wizard, points are not cumulative." Note, also that Wizards are worth 20 points in a melee, as opposed to regular troops at 2 points each (found in the Hereos description "10 points (5 men)")..
- Immunity to regular combat/missile fire: "Wizards cannot be killed by missile fire."
Heroes and Antiheroes:
- "fighting prowess that approached that of supermen."
- "In a melee they are worth 10 points (5 men)."
- "Hits against them are not cumulative and it takes a melee kill by the emery of 10 points in one melee throw to kill them."
So for melee (not missile fire):
20 point kills in one round, points are not cumulative. 10 point kills in one melee throw, points are not cumulative. What we do not know, is if it is possible under the NEWA Ancients Rules to have more than one melee throw against a figure in a round. In either case, as suggested by Patt, his rules are additive and were adapted to a different system, the one for Chainmail. In this case, the important part is if one believed Gygax saw a difference in the above. This means we might have: - All hits must be simultaneous, "one melee throw"
- All hits must be accumulated in the same melee round, but not carry over.
- Both.
Clearly in both case, kill points do not carry over from round. In this regard, it is harder to accomplish simultaneous hits than slowly accumulate hits to kill a figure. Cumulative hits can be achieved turn to turn, round to round, and in separate parts of the turn sequence. Simultaneous hits might allow for some refs to be a little more flexible or rigid in their application. A rigid interpretation is that all hits must occur in a particular part of the sequence and in a single round. A more lenient approach might allow hits over multiple rounds in a single turn. The most lenient is to allow the effects of the entire turn sequence to count (artillery, missiles, and multi rounds of melee), but not carry over to the next turn. On difficulty to achieve simultaneous hits, Giants with "cumulative hits equal to a number sufficient to destroy 12 Armored Footmen" must be the most difficult. Here is a quick survey of the three keywords: Simultaneous, Accumulation, and Cumulative. Simultaneous: - Heroes: "four simultaneous kills must be scored against Heroes (or Anti-heroes) to eliminate them. Otherwise, there is no effect upon them."
- Lycanthropes: "It takes four simultaneous hits, from either missiles or melee, to kill a Lycanthrope in normal combat."
Accumulation:- Ogres: "Ogres are killed when they have taken an accumulation of six missile or melee hits in normal combat. Elves can kill them with three hits...."
Cumulative:
- Giants: "...Giants must take cumulative hits equal to a number sufficient to destroy 12 Armored Footmen before melee or missiles will kill them."
- Rocs: "They require cumulative hits equal to a number sufficient to kill [four*] Heavy Horse to be killed themselves." *presumed.
Who needs multiple hits: - Giant: 12 Armored Footmen
- Super-Heroes: 8, variable fighting type.
- Ogres: 6 Heavy Foot, 3 Heavy Foot by elves, 1 Heavy Foot by Hero, Super Hero or magical weapon
- Rocs: 4 Heavy Horse
- Lycanthropes: four Heavy Foot
Heroes: 4, variable fighting type. - Wizards: 2 Armored Foot, or on horse, 2 Armored Horse
I tend to lean towards a more rigid approach with simultaneous hits. In the wizards case, two simultaneous hits in normal melee is incredibly difficult to achieve on a figure that throws fire balls or lightening bolts, can turn invisible, and is impervious to normal missiles. Same and in agreement here.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 2, 2021 13:26:17 GMT -6
Synthesizing the rules in view of the above comments, one might sort of think of the general categories for normal (mass) combat: Just a couple of observations- you may want to check the Fantasy Reference Table, which can help with categorizing. For instance, Goblins attack as HF and defend as LF and I personally would not list Wight's as "normal types". Also, Ogre's may be a unique category or a sub category of your Large Figures in that they are said to "fight in formations". derv , where is "hits to kill" or are you paraphrasing? Careful reading is required, but the Lycanthrope is one that comes to mind. What we do not know, is if it is possible under the NEWA Ancients Rules to have more than one melee throw against a figure in a round. In either case, as suggested by Patt, his rules are additive and were adapted to a different system, the one for Chainmail. In this case, the important part is if one believed Gygax saw a difference in the above. The NEWA Ancient Rules were most likely Bath's rules for ancients, or a variant there of, which allowed for two rounds of melee per turn and determined kills in a slightly different manner that involved calculating point values and dividing by a factor to determine the number of dice rolled.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 5, 2021 20:20:04 GMT -6
My attempt at blending Bath's rules with Patt can be found here.
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on Jan 16, 2021 8:45:45 GMT -6
For a very long time I considered cumulative and simultaneous hits/kills to be the same thing, with a referee tracking remaining hits. It was only Patt's rules made me realize they are not. Then I was wondering, why the Lycanthropes are so special? It dawned on me that perhaps it's about Beorn - he was kind of a hero after all.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 16, 2021 11:57:24 GMT -6
It's interesting how Patt uses hits and that he actually doesn't use the term "simultaneous" as a descriptor. Instead he says, "not cumulative".
The first issue of the Dragon magazine gives us the Battle of Five Armies, a scenario for Chainmail. What sets Lycanthropes apart from Heroes is that they are worth double value when in or within 6" of woods. In the Dragon scenario Beorn is double valued on the third turn. So, superhero-like. He even defends as 8 HF. I'm not sure it's actually implied in the Fantasy Supplement that they would need 8 simultaneous hits. May be a special case for Beorn.
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Jan 18, 2021 14:00:30 GMT -6
The NEWA Ancient Rules were most likely Bath's rules for ancients, or a variant there of, which allowed for two rounds of melee per turn and determined kills in a slightly different manner that involved calculating point values and dividing by a factor to determine the number of dice rolled. Most likely Bath or a derivative, agreed. Also amazing work bringing the two sets together, can't say that enough. I was about to reply with a breakdown of how an attack by a 2pt/man unit using Bath would play out against a Hero or Wizard — then my laptop needed a trip to the repair shop and I'm just now catching up. Glancing at your work on combining the Bath+Patt, we are in agreement on how they combine (I have the 1957 Bath rules, and 1962 Featherstone War Games book). Just awesome.
|
|
|
Post by delta on Mar 30, 2021 19:21:29 GMT -6
I long ago concluded that the Fantasy Supplement was written primarily for the Mass Combat System at 1:1 scale. Possibly already known to you: Gygax was explicit and consistent through the years of this being this case. Quotes on that point from 1974-2005.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 30, 2021 20:26:40 GMT -6
Possibly already known to you: Gygax was explicit and consistent through the years of this being this case. My emphasis is in regards to the use of the MCT (appendix A) more than figure to man ratio. This is something that I feel Gygax obfuscates in most of his comments when he talks about "man to man". Is he talking about figure to man ratio or is he talking about the appendix B & E? To me, it's obvious that he is talking about the former when you consider appendix D.
|
|