Chainmail Combat with OD&D

[derv]

Malchor , are you definitely talking about Appendix A in Chainmail? Appendix A was intended for mass combat (generally 1:20). I personally use it for D&D with mixed scales (see here) . In other words, using both 1:1 figures and 1:10 figures in same game.  I don't think they used Appendix A in Blackmoor though.

Also, did you see my edit in my post above? There might be some confusion in how Appendix A works.

[Malchor]

Sept 1, 2018 14:08:06 GMT -6 derv said:

Also, did you see my edit in my post above? There might be some confusion in how Appendix A works.

That part is confirmed. Had another look at the rules and realized I flubbed that.

Had the sudden realization that the one time I actually played Chainmail was online on roll20 and both damage and morale were calculated automatically through javascript. At the time, I'd read through and had an understanding of the basic movement rules, but hadn't figured out exactly how deaths were calculated. It seems I had not had it figured out while typing yesterday either!

OK, before talking D&D and Appendix A, let's see if I get how Appendix A is used on Chainmail:

• Let's say are playing at 1:20 and just starting.
  
• Player A won initiative (we will skip movement and assume two figures are already in melee range) and is using 1 figure of Light Foot is attacking Player B's one figure of Light Foot.
• Both players roll 20d6 each.
• Player A rolled 5 sixes, and Player B rolled 7 sixes.
• Player A's figure now represents 13 Light Foot and Player B's 15 Light Foot.
• Now it is Player B's turn (we will skip Morale checks for now), and they return the favor using their same Light Foot to attack the same Lightfoot belonging to Player A that just attacked it.
• This time, Player A rolls 13d6 and Player B rolls 15d6.
• Player A rolled 3 sixes (ouch) and Player B rolled 8 sixes.
• Player A's Light Foot figure is down to 7 soldiers and Player B's down to 12.

Is that correct?

Also, thanks for your patience in working this trough with me.

[derv]

In Chainmail, regardless of scale, one LF figure (man) vs. one LF figure would roll 1d6 (one die per man) and a score of 6 would be a kill (figure eliminated and removed).

Usually you will have a unit of figures engaging another unit of figures. So, you might have 8 figures of HF in two ranks charge 4 figures of LF, for instance. These figures would represent 160 HF and 80 LF at 1:20 scale. The Heavy Foot would roll 4d6 where a score of 5 or 6 is a kill (only 4 figures are in contact with LF). The Light foot would roll 2d6 where a 6 kills (they only get one die per two men in melee against HF).

Hope that helps.

[Malchor]

If I am following you, you are saying “Light Foot: 1 die per man, 6 kills” (changed the - for a : to avoid confusion) means 1d6 per figure of a Light Foot on the table and a roll of 6 removes the opponent’s figure that is under attack. Is that correct?

But isn’t that essentially a 1:1 scale?

I was taught a figure is 20 men, including for an attack. I think this is based on Page 8 says, “The ratio of figures to men assumed is 1:20....” So that “Light Foot: 1 die per man, 6 kills” means 1 die per man the figure represents, and morale check were for losses on that figure.

I can see both readings and can’t find anything in the book to clarify. Your reading of it does make thing much simpler.

[sixdemonbag]

The actual scale doesn't matter. Whether 1 mini (figure) represents 1, 5, 10, 20, 100, or X men (lol not the mutants, haha), you are only typically rolling one die per mini (figure) or whatever ratio the chart prescribes based on opponent.

The reason for this is to reduce the amount of minis and dice needed to simulate the battle.

When changing the unit scale, you might simply change the distance scale as well, if necessary. But, the actual combat procedures stay the same.

That's a long-winded way of saying that yes, you could use the mass combat rules even on a 1:1 scale. Although, there are specific rules for man-to-man combat provided, as well, to give the ref more options and granularity.

[Malchor]

On the good side, this makes the game much easier.

On the bad side, my theory on Appendix A is toast.

[Stormcrow]

Sept 2, 2018 22:51:47 GMT -6 sixdemonbag said:

That's a long-winded way of saying that yes, you could use the mass combat rules even on a 1:1 scale. Although, there are specific rules for man-to-man combat provided, as well, to give the ref more options and granularity.

And to better match reality. The mass combat designations of Light Foot, Heavy Foot, Armored Foot, and so on, don't represent layers of armor but melee effectiveness as a group. Heavy Foot doesn't mean "wearing mail"; it means fighting as a group more effectively than Light Foot: maybe better armor, maybe better training, maybe a closer formation. The Foot and Horse designations don't match specific armor types.

But when going to 1:1 scale, much of that goes out the window: you're not just a component of a group with a single statistic; you're a unit unto yourself, with very specific armor and weapons, and you can't fight in formation with yourself. So a different system is needed for man-to-man fighting.

You COULD use the mass combat system for man-to-man combat, but the values become largely meaningless. The man-to-man system is made to fix that problem. It's not just that having options is nice at the 1:1 scale; it's that the 1:1 scale is below the resolution of the mass combat system.

[Malchor]

Sept 3, 2018 8:04:01 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

But when going to 1:1 scale, much of that goes out the window: you're not just a component of a group with a single statistic; you're a unit unto yourself, with very specific armor and weapons, and you can't fight in formation with yourself. So a different system is needed for man-to-man fighting.

You COULD use the mass combat system for man-to-man combat, but the values become largely meaningless. The man-to-man system is made to fix that problem. It's not just that having options is nice at the 1:1 scale; it's that the 1:1 scale is below the resolution of the mass combat system.

Very true.

While working out how I might use Appendix A for man-to-man, I quickly found the need to start modifying it heavily. I ended up with something that looks like a cross between Chainmail's Appendix A, Appendix B and Phil C Barker's man-to-man rules.

[delta]

Gygax in ENWorld Q&A, 1st March, 2005:

Originally Posted by RFisher
A couple of Chainmail questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[derv]

Eh, it depends on what you are trying to get out of your combat system. Each of Chainmails combat systems has it's hang ups. The Man to Man system is no exception- especially when you introduce the Fantasy Supplement. The Fantasy Combat Table offers even less granularity than Appendix A.

Are you looking for granularity? Or are you looking to expedite resolutions? Perhaps you prefer simplicity. Maybe you are considering mass combat in the mix and don't want to be hopping between different systems. I'll leave "realism" at the door when introducing fantasy. Bottom line is each GM has to establish their own needs and preferences and how to meet them in their campaign.

If it will sway you one way or the other, you will hear it again and again, they (the original players) adopted the Alternative Combat System found in the LBB's fairly quickly.

I looked at Chainmail and the Fantasy Supplement pretty closely. My conclusion at the end of the day was that the Fantasy Supplement was originally intended/written for the use of Appendix A at 1:1 scale. Whether that matters to anyone or has any significance for using it with D&D is up to you.

edit: slow typer cross post

[Malchor]

Sept 3, 2018 10:45:27 GMT -6 derv said:

Eh, it depends on what you are trying to get out of your combat system. Each of Chainmails combat systems has it's hang ups. The Man to Man system is no exception- especially when you introduce the Fantasy Supplement. The Fantasy Combat Table offers even less granularity than Appendix A.

Are you looking for granularity? Or are you looking to expedite resolutions? Perhaps you prefer simplicity. Maybe you are considering mass combat in the mix and don't want to be hopping between different systems. I'll leave "realism" at the door when introducing fantasy. Bottom line is each GM has to establish their own needs and preferences and how to meet them in their campaign.

If it will sway you one way or the other, you will hear it again and again, they (the original players) adopted the Alternative Combat System found in the LBB's fairly quickly.

I looked at Chainmail and the Fantasy Supplement pretty closely. My conclusion at the end of the day was that the Fantasy Supplement was originally intended/written for the use of Appendix A at 1:1 scale. Whether that matters to anyone or has any significance for using it with D&D is up to you.

Short answer, in this case, I was looking for granularity. Based on the understanding I had of Chainmail (using 1d6/man for a Light Foot), it seemed that granularity was already baked into Chainmail's mass-combat, but missing from man-to-man (thus the use of Hit Points and Damage rolls)—thus my thought to mess them a bit. I'm putting that on hold now, to wrap my head around using 1d6/figure of a Light Foot to understand how that would work.


Overly long answer: What I'm looking for out of Chainmail (caveat: all questioning below are me questioning myself and leaving the door open—not debating with others):

Originally, when I first looked at Chainmail, there was a hope that Chainmail would give a better understanding of the OD&D LBBs. Yes, you can play OD&D without Chainmail, but as the SR #2 FAQ shows, there are some dependencies. Lee Gold confirmed to me that she used a bit of Chainmail (I asked), so I figured OK, let's learn that system.

At first, I skipped right to the Fantasy Supplement and realized starting there is not a good thing—for me at least.

That led me to think, "OK, keep it simple, start from the beginning with just mass combat." Many say Chainmail is for mass combat and the Alternative combat system if for man-to-man in OD&D (perhaps, and there may be applications where Chainmail's man-to-man makes sense, but let's leave that one alone too—on a side not, while looking for Gary's take on Chainmail mass combat, Gary seems to indicate use of Chainmail even for mass combat was not a thing).

That led me to start from page one, looking at Chainmail as just Chainmail, focusing only on understanding mass combat. So, right now, that is my focus. Understanding Chainmail's mass combat system without Fantasy creatures.

As mentioned above, I did start commenting on this thread by thinking of tinkering with the mass-combat table to make it an Alternate Man-to-Man table (I kind of like where I was heading too), but again, letting that go until I feel like a have a handle on the foundation first—I'm a big believer in knowing the rules before breaking them. But, as Chainmail's own opening says:

Although the rules have been thoroughly play-tested over a period of many months, it is likely that you will
eventually find some part that seems ambiguous, unanswered, or unsatisfactory. When such a situation arises settle it among yourselves, record the decision in the rules book, and abide by it from then on. These rules may be treated as guidelines around which you form a game that suits you. It is always a good idea to amend the rules to allow for historical precedence or common sense — follow the spirit of the rules rather than the letter.

Emphasis added.

On Appendix A it is ambiguous which was the intent (not using the word "right" because both can work, depending on the kind of play you want):

• 1 figure = 20 men, so it is 20d6 for a fresh unit of Light Foot and calculating morale for that figure/unit of remaining men
• 1 figure = 20 men, so it is 1d6 / figure of Light Foot attacking, not sure if morale is then calculated per attacking unit or the entire force in this case (will ask that separately).

I suppose one is more granular and slower, while the other would expedite resolutions. I'm not looking to debate this one with people. You do you. I'm just trying to figure it out for myself, plus I know a group that is doing the first version, so I'm considering if it is even worth mentioning to them that there is another way.

I recently found delta's blog post with RFisher's question and Gary's reply (thanks for checking here as well Delta). Gary's answer is pretty clear, but I still find it intriguing that RFisher note's "I've known people to interpret it both ways." 

I searched Dragonsfoot for any mention of Chainmail by Gary as well. There it looked like all mentions by Gary focused on 1:1 and the Fantasy Supplement. This looks to support your view that "Fantasy Supplement was originally intended/written for the use of Appendix A at 1:1 scale." And perhaps gives context to Gary's answer above. We also know that Gary got into medieval wargames through the Siege of Bodenburg game, which I just looked at this morning and it too is 1:1. At this point, I'm wondering if Gary was just more of a 1:1 scale rules kind of guy, even with mass-combat.

Has anyone else asked Jeff Perren about this? It is possible Appendix A is 1:1 (as in 1d6/figure) for use with the Fantasy Supplement, but 1:20 (as in 20d6/light foot unit—until they take casualties anyway) with only historical medieval combat?

Just saying it could be both and Gary is still right, given context.

[derv]

Chainmail was originally written for 1:10 historical medieval simulations using 40mm Elastolin miniatures. There was no Man to Man system and there was no Fantasy Supplement.

There is good reason people questioned Gary about these things over the years. Consider the quote above from Enworld, ambuguity within the LBB's like the description of Land Combat p.25 and inclusion of PC fighting capabilities meant for the Man-to-Man system, Gygax telling us in the intro to Swords & Spells (1976) that the Fantasy Supplement "assumed a basic man-for-man situation", in the same year the first issue of The Dragon magazine came out that included a Chainmail scenario for The Battle of Five Armies with an order of battle of mixed scale (1:20 & 1:1). There's also a play report floating around of Gygax and Perren, and others, playing Battle for the Moathouse at 1:1 & 1:10. These are just a few examples I can think of off the top of my head.

Best way to learn Chainmail is to ignore the figure scale. A figure = 1 man on combat table.

[Malchor]

Sept 3, 2018 13:45:35 GMT -6 derv said:

Best way to learn Chainmail is to ignore the figure scale. A figure = 1 man on combat table.

OK, let's say, I'm not playing Chainmail in a physical space (no worries about a script rolling for me and dealing with that other way of doing it).

My figures are 1:20, but a figure = 1 man on the combat table, cool. Movement is as I know it, combat we covered (less dice), ranged weapon rules, etc. will all be the same.

But what about morale? What am I calculating morale on? Let's say I have 100 Light Foot (poor Light Foot keep getting used), so I have 5 figures for them. Let's say I keep them together as a group or "unit", and I move them together and they attack together. Do I calculate morale on this one unit or on the total of all my forces?

I think that is the one mechanic I have not worked out doing it this way.

[derv]

Yes, Chainmail deals in units (organized bodies of men) and does not specify what a unit must be. So, if it's a group of 5 figures of LF and they have suffered a loss of 25% (2 figures) you would make an excess casualty morale check of 8+ on 2d6.

If you choose to use it, the Post Melee Morale would also count figures. The example on page 15-16 makes that fairly clear.

In both cases you will find larger units are a benefit for morale.

The real reason wargamers use scale is to reduce the playing surface and number of figures necessary to simulate a battle in a reasonable time frame.

[Stormcrow]

I don't take Gary literally when he says that the Fantasy Supplement was about man-to-man combat. Maybe what he meant was the fantastic figures fight each other at 1:1 (using the Fantasy Combat Table), while the mundane figures (Hobbits, Elves without Magic Swords, Goblins, and so on) fight at 20:1 as do normal men — because that's how the system works. This is what he states in D&D, in any case, in the paragraph about land combat.

[Malchor]

And...of course someone already hacked the mass combat system in a way more or less as I was originally considering: drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEXQbnhO7TRajdIQV9CYmFaVmM/view

derv, back to historic mass combat, I'll have a look at those morale rules again. Thank you.

[derv]

Malchor here's another conversion doc I put together for incorporating Chainmail's Mass Combat System with D&D. It's a little different in it's approach than what I linked to before.

Appendix A for D&D combat

[Malchor]

Sept 8, 2018 16:28:16 GMT -6 derv said:

Malchor here's another conversion doc I put together for incorporating Chainmail's Mass Combat System with D&D. It's a little different in it's approach than what I linked to before.

Appendix A for D&D combat

This is where I was heading: docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YXhHupu2PInwF8TR0G4rzMKiaGJk-hu2VZpFoDUx_wc/edit?usp=sharing

It could work at lower levels but would break down at higher levels as HP climbs.

What I do like about it is how HP affects how well you can fight, adding a little bit of simulation without complexity. Insane numbers of dice at higher levels (and HP) is the flaw in playability and balance, which is likely why Steven Winter used HD in the other example.

WAIT. It is that Steven Winter that owns this PDF: drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEXQbnhO7TRajdIQV9CYmFaVmM/view

[Malchor]

This might be pedantic, but what he heck.

If you did try to use Chainmail for OD&D, would it make much difference between 2e and 3e?

What I’m driving at is, where there any small changes to the man to man or fantasy that might be making it harder to get Chainmail to work with OD&D? I’m doubting, but figured it was worth exploring.

2e was what was available when the wood grain boxed started selling and would have been the edition Gygax had in mind when referring Chainmail.

On a side note, at what point in 1975 did 3e Chainmail start selling?

[thegreyelf]

This PDF compiled by Aldarron and including work from Coffee, Finarvyn, Jacar, Radagast the Brown, Rabbit, Stormcrow, myself, and a number of others, should answer all of your questions regarding how Chainmail combat works with OD&D. I use it exclusively at my table and have been running an Age of Conan OD&D game using it for over five years, now. If something seems unclear upon reading, I suggest giving it a go at the table. It will make sense.

www.grey-elf.com/compleat-chainmail.pdf

[Malchor]

I was looking at APA-L and A&E issues last night and these questions have been going on since the start. If I have the time, I may summarize some of the views.

[Malchor]

Looking over some old Alarums & Excursions again, I spotted this from Lee Gold in Alarums & Excursions #3 at the end of the Editorial page:

DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS, the game, is available from
TACTICAL STUDIES RULES, 542 SAGE ST, LAKE GENEVA, WISCONSIN 53147. The basic game is $10.00 but include $5.00 extra to get the Dice. You should also get CHAINMAIL for $5.00 to resolve missile fire and GREYHAWK for $5.00 to expand on the game. We suggest spending the complete $25.00 if you can.

I take it Lee was using the Alternate Combat System, with Chainmail only to resolve missile fire.