|
Post by thegreyelf on Jan 8, 2010 6:45:31 GMT -6
But Gygax was asked this very question, and is on record as saying a Hero is worth 4 men, and not 80. 1. "Men" and "Figures" are used interchangably in Chainmail. Period. 2. As many of us have pointed out time and again, Gygax's later quotes are moot because he himself was inconsistent in his comments and the way he played the game.
|
|
|
Post by delta on Jan 8, 2010 10:32:32 GMT -6
But Gygax was asked this very question, and is on record as saying a Hero is worth 4 men, and not 80. 1. "Men" and "Figures" are used interchangably in Chainmail. Period. 2. As many of us have pointed out time and again, Gygax's later quotes are moot because he himself was inconsistent in his comments and the way he played the game.(1) This seems to argue against your position, not for it. (2) Then why use Gygax quotes to defend your gameplay?
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jan 8, 2010 11:35:48 GMT -6
To me, however, it doesn't make a lick of difference if a Hero is worth 4 men, 40 men, or 80 men. That's all just a matter of how things play out in my head...the practical difference on the table is completely nil--the hero is worth four figures, and play remains identical whatever scale one uses. Indeed. It only matters if it matters to you, as they say. That's very interesting, given that Swords & Spells is specifically referenced in the DMG... Yeah, that's what caught my attention, too. Other Sage Advice answers from that time drew clear distinctions between D&D and AD&D, though. Despite its mention in the DMG, Swords & Spells is for D&D; I wonder if that had an influence on the answer to that Sage Advice question. Even so, you'd think Swords & Spells would have been picked for the "this works pretty well, even though it's not for AD&D" part. Dunno. Maybe even the TSR people preferred rolling dice (instead of the diceless aproach of Swords & Spells), and thus gravitated towards Chainmail. Yeah, I think that is probably the bottom line. Swords & Spells does not provide the same visceral game play as Chain Mail, and requires a lot more book-keeping from the outset (rather than just during morale checks...). Gygax definitely continued to think in terms of Swords & Spells when writing about AD&D to judge by the orders of battle he published in Dragon, but then the scales are smaller there than in S&S. We should also recall that Battle System was in development for years, so chances are that TSR staff were using some hodge-podge of rules derived from CM, S&S, and whatever else they had to hand at the time, partly with the aim of seeing how it turned out. Indeed, as you're aware my Forbidden Lore makes use of all three Chainmail systems for OD&D combat, dependent up on the situation, and I suspect this is how Gygax played the game. One of my favorite Gygax quotes is, "The one thing we must never let players discover is that they don't need the rules." To me, however, it doesn't make a lick of difference if a Hero is worth 4 men, 40 men, or 80 men. But Gygax was asked this very question, and is on record as saying a Hero is worth 4 men, and not 80. 1. "Men" and "Figures" are used interchangably in Chainmail. Period. 2. As many of us have pointed out time and again, Gygax's later quotes are moot because he himself was inconsistent in his comments and the way he played the game.(1) This seems to argue against your position, not for it. (2) Then why use Gygax quotes to defend your gameplay? I cannot see you guys making a lot of progress in this debate unless you address the basic disconnect that you are having. The rules "as they are written" in Chain Mail definitely do not suggest that 1:1 scale battles, Fantasy Supplement or not, use the 1:20/1:10 scale rules, but they do in fact make more sense from a mathematical perspective if you do. Gygax often made what appear to be entirely contradictory statements about the games he designed, but what he said often contained kernels of wisdom. That said, it does appear (based on his later comments and a mathematical eye for the rules) that hero and wizard types were envisioned by him as being for 1:1 scale when he designed the rules. That is not to say it is "wrong" to use them at 1:10 or 1:20 scale. In practice, he did, whatever his feelings on the matter, and many other people have done and will do in the future. I think Delta's point here, is that the mathematics are not consistent across scales, and it makes most sense to only use heroes and wizards at 1:1 scale, even though the rules as they appear make no such provision, and indeed seem to suggest that they were intended for 1:10 or 1:20 scale. That is to say: 1) The rules do not suggest using the 1:20/1:10 scale rules of CM for 1:1 scale engagements, rather they say to use the Man to man rules. 2) The underlying mathematical structure of the rules, however, argue for using the 1:20/1:10 scale rules for 1:1 scale engagements. 3) When asked what to do about heroes and wizards in 1:20 scale actions, Gygax said they were not suitable for such games. 4) Nevertheless, Gygax did participate in mixed scale games of Chain Mail, just as he played a halfling magician in somebody elses' D&D campaign.
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Jan 8, 2010 13:11:34 GMT -6
(1) This seems to argue against your position, not for it. Man what? Please, enlighten me in terms a child could understand. How does it make a bit of difference IN PRACTICAL PLAY whether a Hero represents 4 men, 40 men, or 80 men, so long as every other figure in the game represents 1 man, 10 men, or 20 men respectively? HOW!? You're doing that, not me.
|
|
|
Post by delta on Jan 9, 2010 4:20:30 GMT -6
(1) This seems to argue against your position, not for it. Man what? Please, enlighten me in terms a child could understand. How does it make a bit of difference IN PRACTICAL PLAY whether a Hero represents 4 men, 40 men, or 80 men, so long as every other figure in the game represents 1 man, 10 men, or 20 men respectively? HOW!? You're doing that, not me. Oy vey. (1) If the book says of Heroes that "They have the fighting ability of four figures" (p. 30), and you claim that "Men and Figures are used interchangably in Chainmail. Period." (Reply #60), then by substitution we have a statement of Heroes that "They have the fighting ability of four men. Period". So that's why that claim seems to curiously argue against your position. (2) In your Reply #55, you said "One of my favorite Gygax quotes is, 'The one thing we must never let players discover is that they don't need the rules.' To me, however, it doesn't make a lick of difference if a Hero is worth 4 men, 40 men, or 80 men.", which I found to be highly curious.
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Jan 9, 2010 8:14:19 GMT -6
Sigh. #2 was a throwaway comment, and you're well aware of that. You're being deliberately obtuse. Not to mention, you've been doing it since your first post here, despite everyone telling you that doing so doesn't hold water. So if you can do it, others can as well...but seriously, nobody should be using Gygax quotes to support their arguments, for the reasons already stated ad infinitum.
And your point one is completely ridiculous. While Men and Figures are used interchangably, since this is a miniatures game, figures is the important term, not "Men." Indeed, given that men and figures are used interchangably, the game will play identically whether a figure represents 1, 10, or 20 actual warriors. The actual, mechanical play of the game does not change one iota.
Look, (leaving 1:1 scale out of this) if I have eight figures battling in groups of 4 and 1, and the 1 is a hero, and all are ranked as heavy foot, I roll 4 dice for the group of 4, and 4 dice for the group of 1. Both sides are looking at 5 or 6 to kill. All 4 of the larger group need to hit the hero to kill. The hero will kill one of each of the other 4 on every hit. Whether each one of the singles in my mind represents a group of 10 or 20 is moot--each die still wipes out one of those figures. The only difference it makes is whether the hero represents 40 or 80 real-world people (assuming 10 or 20), and that doesn't change the play of the game a whit, so long as all other factors are consistent (i.e. non-hero, non-fantasy figures always represent 10 or 20 respectively).
That's all I'm saying here. I'm done talking to you. This thread is starting to piss me off way too much, and I have far too much love and respect for this forum and the people on it to get involved in an inevitable flame war over a fundamental disagreement in gaming philosophy as stupid and pointless as this one.
|
|
|
Post by chgowiz on Jan 9, 2010 10:32:47 GMT -6
Matthew - thank you! Thank you from the bottom of my heart, because I have been following this along (I have a secret fondness for somehow playing Chainmail, but I can't find anyone who will play it around here Chicago some weekend) and I thought I was stupid for not understanding the conversation and being able to follow it. Your summary helped a LOT.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jan 9, 2010 11:49:59 GMT -6
Maybe something obvious ought to be pointed out, so I will, with the caveat that I don't and never have used the Chainmail rules for miniature battles - there are a couple others I prefer. Probably, unless I happen to just fall into a friendly game, I probably never will either because I don't think they are a very good set of rules. So I have no inverstiment in any point of view. My (great) interest in Chainmail is solely its application to combat in OD&D. Here's the thing. Chainmail did not spring ex nihilo from the mind of Gygax; not as a straight set of rules. As Harami 2000 has pointed out in this forum Chainmail was meshed together over several years from several differen't sources (and unknown authors) and contains four compleatly different approaches to armed combat. Its a mess; a hodge podge tool kit from which wargamers were expected to take what they needed. If you are looking for some kind of internal consistent logic that is going to apply across all forms in equal proportions you are looking at the wrong set of rules. The same applies to using Chainmail with OD&D combat vs the "alternate system"; meaning bonuses, penalties, the effects of armor, etc have different, non equal effects on the game. Doesn't matter though as long as the methods applied are consistent within the session being played.
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Jan 9, 2010 17:31:27 GMT -6
aldarron: agreed 100%
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jan 10, 2010 18:33:40 GMT -6
Matthew - thank you! Thank you from the bottom of my heart, because I have been following this along (I have a secret fondness for somehow playing Chainmail, but I can't find anyone who will play it around here Chicago some weekend) and I thought I was stupid for not understanding the conversation and being able to follow it. Your summary helped a LOT. No problem; glad to have been of some small service. ;D
|
|
|
Post by grodog on Jan 11, 2010 23:30:08 GMT -6
Unfortunately I don't have that Wargamer's Newsletter (and those who do aren't playing ball, since there was also no reply back in 2006) so it's difficult to know to what detail that "battle report" might go into, or even whether that would clarify what scale(s) EGG & co. were using for that particular setup. Copies of PF60 and 63 arrived today. More details to follow, at some point.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jan 12, 2010 8:38:35 GMT -6
Copies of PF60 and 63 arrived today. More details to follow, at some point. Excellent news! Definitely keep us posted!
|
|
|
Post by grodog on Jan 14, 2010 19:38:07 GMT -6
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jan 15, 2010 15:57:59 GMT -6
Very interesting; so, if I am reading that right, it looks as though Gygax was advocating mixed scales for the Battle of Five Armies, with 5,000 goblins represented by 250 models and Gandalf by 1 Wizard model. I suppose the inference there is that Gandalf is twenty times more powerful than the average wizard. I wonder how much the scale issue prompted levels in the first place?
|
|
|
Post by harami2000 on Jan 15, 2010 19:13:58 GMT -6
Very interesting; so, if I am reading that right, it looks as though Gygax was advocating mixed scales for the Battle of Five Armies, with 5,000 goblins represented by 250 models and Gandalf by 1 Wizard model. Yep; per page 1 (& 3) of this thread. Did we get sidetracked? I suppose the inference there is that Gandalf is twenty times more powerful than the average wizard. I wonder how much the scale issue prompted levels in the first place? I read that (and our heroes +/- retinue) as just "mixed scales" and no problem with that personally.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jan 24, 2010 8:17:36 GMT -6
To me, however, it doesn't make a lick of difference if a Hero is worth 4 men, 40 men, or 80 men. That's all just a matter of how things play out in my head...the practical difference on the table is completely nil--the hero is worth four figures, and play remains identical whatever scale one uses. For what its worth, Arneson's interpretation of the number of men (not figures) a hero is worth is illustrated in this quote from page 90 (1977) of the FFC. "Bandits and Nomads will seek to take prisoners whenever they have a 3 - 1 numerical superiority, counting a Hero as 40 men and Super·hero as 80 men."
|
|