|
|
Post by cooper on Jul 22, 2010 2:31:16 GMT -6
I'd like to propose a thread where you can state: "As I understand it...."
and then list a rule from CHAINMAIL as you interpret it. People may post responses like "no disagreement" or "Actually, I read it differently and let me show you why...." etc. I'm hoping this could be a good thread to determine what the prevailing wisdom is on the byzantine writings and give us a space to hash out alternate viewpoints.
Who would like to start?
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 22, 2010 6:02:06 GMT -6
I love the concept, but suspect that this thread will bomb.
Most of the time we pick up on different interpretations of rules through regular discussion in a thread not intended to find different interpretations, if that makes sense. Most of the time rules probably are read the same by everyone, and it's the occasional "wait ... that's not what it says!" that sparks off a tangential discussion (or new thread) on something.
Try some out, however, and see what happens!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2010 8:30:30 GMT -6
Better make use of this thread then...
My understanding of the Mass Combat Missile rules:
In melee we are given the categories of Light Foot, Heavy Foot and Armored Foot so it is probably natural that the three categories for missile fire are each assigned to these three categories respectively.
The point at which I find a problem with this is that the three categories for missile fire are divided as follows:
1) Unarmed
2) 1/2 armor or shield
3) fully armored
Aside from the first question we may ask of what does "1/2 armor" or "full armor" refer to (it could even be referring to area of body covered irrespective of type of armor), the important point for me here is the presence of the "or" in the second rating and the assignment of "unarmored" to the first category.
The term "1/2 armor" implies to me that any troop with any armor whatsoever is in the second category. Likewise with any troop type possessing a shield. But seeing that it labels these two options as a "this" or "that" it implies to me that any troop type with a shield plus any type of armor is in the last category of "fully armored", whether that armor is mere leather or plate.
It is my understanding that the first category of "unarmored" is to be used only for troops possessing no armor at all (such as peasants) but not necessarily for all troops classified as Light Foot.
I would divide the defense categories of troops against missiles as follows:
1) Unarmored: No armor (most likely peasants).
2) 1/2 armor or shield: leather (maybe chain jerkin) or non full body armor or a shield. (Light Foot)
3) Fully armored: Plate, chain (full suit), chain + shield, leather + shield. (Heavy Foot, Armored Foot and even Light Foot can be included here).
What this approach emphasizes is the presence of a shield or not to determine how effective troops are at defending against missile weapons. This produces a pleasing result to my sense of the value of shields against missile weapons.
Just out of interest, the percentage range for numbers of archers killing numbers of defenders is as follows (based upon the best and worst possible outcome for number ranges in each category, not individual number of archers) :
Unarmored:
1- 2: 0% - 100%
3 - 4: 33% - 66%
5 - 6: 33% - 66%
7 - 8: 37% - 57%
9 - 10: 40% - 55%
1/2 armor or shield:
1 - 2: 0%
3 - 4: 0% - 33%
5 - 6: 33% - 40%
7 - 8: 25% - 42%
9 - 10: 30% - 33%
Fully armored:
1 - 3: 0%
4 - 8: 0% - 25%
9 - 12: 8.3% - 22%
13 - 16: 12.5% - 23%
17 -20: 15% - 17.6%
Maybe we could compare these with the percentage chances of kills vs armor class from the Man to Man tables?
It may be that the general percentages outlined above are actually close to the average range of percentages arrived at for a kill on the Man to Man table across the whole groupings of armors??
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Aug 1, 2010 20:04:45 GMT -6
That sounds pretty reasonable to me; "half-armour" versus "full armour" definitions are certainly tricky. Interestingly, the "man-to-man" tables pretty much treat "no armour" the same as "padded/leather" and "shield only" for all missile weapons; for instance, in the case of the short bow:
6/7/8: AC 1-3
7/8/9: AC 4
8/9/10: AC 5
9/10/11: AC 6
11/12/-: AC 7
12/-/-: AC 8
Troops equipped with plate and shield are practically invincible versus anything but heavy crossbows and arquebus. Pretty confusing stuff, all in all.
|
|
|
|
Post by thorswulf on Aug 1, 2010 22:01:02 GMT -6
1/2 armor vs. full armor as I understand it is based on my assumption that anybody wearing full chain and a shield or better counts as armored, while those with full cloth, or leather with a shield, or a mail hauberk counts as 1/2 armored. There isa precedent for this as Norman knights are defined as "heavy" cavalry in the rules,which certainly fits the fully armored definition. I can justify a Saxon huscarl or Viking with a Danish Axe as half armored with no problem. Most leather and clolth armor did offer some protection from the relatively weak arrows of the dark and early middle ages (None vs. the Welsh Longbow). Maybe just pencilling light, heavy, and armored would be a quick fix? It seems that the archery rules are part of the older rules from the Doomesday Book? I'm not sure but the technical jargon certainly seems odd compared to the other definitions. Anybody know for sure?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2010 6:12:01 GMT -6
That sounds pretty reasonable to me; "half-armour" versus "full armour" definitions are certainly tricky. Interestingly, the "man-to-man" tables pretty much treat "no armour" the same as "padded/leather" and "shield only" for all missile weapons; for instance, in the case of the short bow: Troops equipped with plate and shield are practically invincible versus anything but heavy crossbows and arquebus. Pretty confusing stuff, all in all. Most definitely. The only differences between no armor versus leather/padded is the horsebow at long range, the light crossbow at medium and long, and the heavy crossbow at medium and long. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2010 6:25:22 GMT -6
1/2 armor vs. full armor as I understand it is based on my assumption that anybody wearing full chain and a shield or better counts as armored, while those with full cloth, or leather with a shield, or a mail hauberk counts as 1/2 armored. There isa precedent for this as Norman knights are defined as "heavy" cavalry in the rules,which certainly fits the fully armored definition. I can justify a Saxon huscarl or Viking with a Danish Axe as half armored with no problem. Most leather and clolth armor did offer some protection from the relatively weak arrows of the dark and early middle ages (None vs. the Welsh Longbow). Maybe just pencilling light, heavy, and armored would be a quick fix? It seems that the archery rules are part of the older rules from the Doomesday Book? I'm not sure but the technical jargon certainly seems odd compared to the other definitions. Anybody know for sure? That is why I put my post up. The way the rules are written up it appears that they are talking about different categories than just the heavy, light and armored we are given for melee. Or at the least, as you suspect they were written at a different time. The thing most people do though, is assume they are referring to the same classifications for melee combat. I'm happy with putting a mail hauberk with no shield in the second category too. I also have no problem with putting leather and shield in the last category either as it gives real value to the defensive potential of a shield versus missiles. The question then becomes is the mail hauberk getting the raw deal versus leather by being lumped in the same category? I think that by giving the shield one category of armor protection itself, it is easier to make the distinction between attack and defense values for troops armed with a hand weapon and a shield versus troops armed with a pole arm or two handed weapon but no shield and thus to make a tactical decision as to what to choose. |
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Aug 3, 2010 7:16:51 GMT -6
One thing worth considering is the practicality of having an "unarmoured" category that excludes shield use. It sounds like something that would only be very rarely used in the game, which makes its inclusion somewhat questionable.
Let us bear in mind, however, that Norman knights are not defined as heavy horse in the rules, but as medium horse (p. 15). Almost all armoured foot and heavy horse in the rules appear to be fourteenth and fifteenth century types (possibly thirteenth century, but I think that is less clear).
So, I think it is quite probable that "fully armoured" is analogous to the author's understanding of "armoured foot" and that "heavy horse" could be understood as "armoured horse" and would thus be analogous to "fully armoured". Where cataphracts might fit into that system, I am none too sure. Field of Glory treats cavalry as generally one grade more vulnerable to missile fire than infantry, but Chain Mail is heavily biased towards horsemen. My supposition would be:
Fully Armoured = Plate (shield is irrelevant)
Half Armoured = Mail (or any with shield)
Unarmoured = Textile or worse (no shield)
I would probably seek to amend this to read:
Fully Armoured = Plate (shield is irrelevant)
Half Armoured = Mail (or textile with shield)
Unarmoured = Textile or worse (no shield)
Which itself starts to look a lot like the D&D armour classes:
Fully Armoured = AC 4, 3, 2
Half Armoured = AC 6, 5
Unarmoured = AC 9, 8, 7
AC 4 might belong in the half armoured category, but I suspect the uneven distribution of values probably helped prompt the AD&D revision.
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Aug 3, 2010 13:01:11 GMT -6
My supposition would be: Fully Armoured = Plate (shield is irrelevant) Half Armoured = Mail (or any with shield) Unarmoured = Textile or worse (no shield) I would probably seek to amend this to read: Fully Armoured = Plate (shield is irrelevant) Half Armoured = Mail (or textile with shield) Unarmoured = Textile or worse (no shield) Which itself starts to look a lot like the D&D armour classes: Fully Armoured = AC 4, 3, 2 Half Armoured = AC 6, 5 Unarmoured = AC 9, 8, 7 AC 4 might belong in the half armoured category, but I suspect the uneven distribution of values probably helped prompt the AD&D revision. Not unlike the way I broke down the ac - troop types, with AC 4 and 7 being able to swing either way depending on the nature of the individuals. Light Foot AC 9-7 (No Armor through Leather or Leather & Shield) Heavy Foot AC 7-4 (Leather & Shield through Chain Mail & Shield) Armored Foot AC 4-2 (Chain Mail & Shield through Plate & Shield) I think I'd agree with Hawks interpretation for the missle tables. The only trouble really is that it adds another metric to keep track of, so its just simpler to equate light foot with unarmored. This might be a really interesting rule to put in the OD&D with CHAINMAIL doc. Right now I just have the troop types plugged in to the projectile table, but could easily switch it to "no armor" "armor or shield" etc. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Aug 3, 2010 13:07:57 GMT -6
It seems that the archery rules are part of the older rules from the Doomesday Book? I'm not sure but the technical jargon certainly seems odd compared to the other definitions. Anybody know for sure? Not being one of those few who have seen them, I can't say for sure where the Domesday rules may differ from what's published, but its my understanding that those differences are slight. There was only about a year between when the Domesday "troop type" "mass combat" rules appeared and the first edition of CHAINMAIL was published. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2010 8:40:56 GMT -6
One thing worth considering is the practicality of having an "unarmoured" category that excludes shield use. It sounds like something that would only be very rarely used in the game, which makes its inclusion somewhat questionable. I agree with this with regards to a fantasy setting or running D&D with Chainmail. I think the category of 'unarmored' though is much more appropriate for a war game recreating middle age battles with the presence of peasant troops or very lightly/virtually unarmored troops like Swiss pikemen. Certainly. The problem stems from there only being 3 categories where there are really 4 potential types of armor categories plus the effect of a shield: 1) None 2) Leather 3) Chain 4) Plate Whichever way you divide these up, some form of armor type is going to get a raw deal. If we put leather in with none, then leather gets devalued, if we put chain in with leather, then chain gets devalued etc. I find the mass combat missile rules quite powerful though and don't mind limiting the first category of 'unarmored' to just those opponents who truly have no armor at all. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2010 8:49:31 GMT -6
I think I'd agree with Hawks interpretation for the missle tables. The only trouble really is that it adds another metric to keep track of, so its just simpler to equate light foot with unarmored. This might be a really interesting rule to put in the OD&D with CHAINMAIL doc. Right now I just have the troop types plugged in to the projectile table, but could easily switch it to "no armor" "armor or shield" etc. Most definitely it is easier to just equate the missile categories with the melee categories. It is more a matter of play style, and I like to give a tactical advantage to using shields, as long as this is counteracted in some way in the offensive department. By the way Aldarron, nice OD&D+Chainmail document. I also might give your Dragons at Dawn a look some time.  |
|
jacar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 345
|
Post by jacar on Aug 5, 2010 11:00:03 GMT -6
Do yourselves a favor and equate them to... Full Armor = Armored Foot 1/2 armor = Heavy Foot No Armor = Light Foot You'll drive yourself crazy trying to get exactness out of a set of rules that are inherently not "exact"! |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Aug 5, 2010 19:48:08 GMT -6
Do yourselves a favor and equate them to... Full Armor = Armored Foot 1/2 armor = Heavy Foot No Armor = Light Foot You'll drive yourself crazy trying to get exactness out of a set of rules that are inherently not "exact"! Yeah I agree in that if I was playing a miniatures battle I would do just that to avoid headaches, but in a CHAINMAIL with OD&D context I've realized Mathews point of equating the no, 1/2 etc to armor classes is dead easy and makes projectiles and shields a lot more interesting. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2010 2:40:14 GMT -6
Do yourselves a favor and equate them to... Full Armor = Armored Foot 1/2 armor = Heavy Foot No Armor = Light Foot You'll drive yourself crazy trying to get exactness out of a set of rules that are inherently not "exact"! Most certainly true for some people! I don't think I find it all that difficult though, as the main thing to keep track of is whether they are carrying a shield or not. Leather/chain goes in the 1/2 armored category, plate in the armored category. Add a shield and leather/chain goes in the armored category or gives 1/2 armored by itself. Unarmored is for just that, 'unarmored' in any way. |
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Aug 8, 2010 9:45:16 GMT -6
I agree with this with regards to a fantasy setting or running D&D with Chainmail. I think the category of 'unarmoured' though is much more appropriate for a war game recreating middle age battles with the presence of peasant troops or very lightly/virtually unarmoured troops like Swiss pikemen. Quite possibly. Certainly. The problem stems from there only being 3 categories where there are really 4 potential types of armour categories plus the effect of a shield: 1) None 2) Leather 3) Chain 4) Plate Whichever way you divide these up, some form of armour type is going to get a raw deal. If we put leather in with none, then leather gets devalued, if we put chain in with leather, then chain gets devalued etc. I find the mass combat missile rules quite powerful though and don't mind limiting the first category of 'unarmoured' to just those opponents who truly have no armour at all. I agree, and it is interesting that Field of Glory does use four classes (Unprotected, Protected, Armoured, Heavily Armoured) that map much better onto D&D armour classes. The way they rate them is interesting as well, in that "protected" requires a minimum of either textile armour or a shield, and up to a "limited degree of metallic protection" without a shield. An "armoured" type needs metal body and head armour in combination with a shield (foot only), whilst "heavily armoured" requires men to be fully armoured and at least some horses barded. I think if the man-to-man values are taken into account we pretty much have to accept that textile armour or shield alone is equivalent to "unarmoured". Do yourselves a favor and equate them to... Full Armour = Armoured Foot 1/2 Armour = Heavy Foot No Armour = Light Foot You'll drive yourself crazy trying to get exactness out of a set of rules that are inherently not "exact"! There is no doubt that is the easiest method, and in the vast majority of cases it is suitable (not to mention agreeable in terms of points), but driving ourselves crazy with other possibilities is a good bit of fun, and can lead to revelations. Just today I realised that the points values for troops in Chain Mail are the basis for the pay rates for mercenaries in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, and that the scale rules were responsible for the 100 GP/Level rates of levelled characters. Gave me quite a chuckle. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Sept 11, 2010 16:56:48 GMT -6
Mea Culpa. Comparing pages 23 and 32. Army Commanders and Heroes.
Heroes do not fight in mass combat as 4 units. They cannot kill 1-4 unit (25-100 men) per turn. They, add 1 to the score of each dice rolled. 6 units of heavy foot lead by a hero (or whom have a hero in their midst) fight as 6 units of heavy foot and add +1 to each dice rolled. This is exactly the same as that of a "commander" troop-type in the non-fantasy chainmail rules. The only difference being that a hero does not suffer the fate of his units. When the this 6 units is reduced to 0 unit, the hero is left alone and fights on the man-to-man chart (2d6), or he may split off earlier, but the units loose the +1 to each dice.
1) Conan the super-hero was leading a band of 25 horsemen, (1 unit of light horse) when they were ambushed by 100 pict soldiers (4 units light foot). Rolling initiative, Conan and his cohort won. This battle could be run two ways. The first:
1a) Conan's troop rolls 1d6+1/5-6 (1:2) This means they roll a single d6 and add +1 to the roll (because of the hero) a modified result of 5+ means 2 units of foot have been destroyed.
1b) After checking morale the two remaining units of light footed picts attack 2d6/6 (2:1). They roll 2d6. It will take two 6's to score one kill because of the foot vs. horse ratio. Success!
Round two: Conan's horsemen have been wiped out and he is left alone vs. 50 pict warriors (2 units remaining). The pict fight naked with spears and conan is unmounted, wearing a magical chain hauburk, and wielding a magical two handed sword.
2a) Conan can (probably) only be surrounded by 8 foes at a time. They need to roll a 10 or higher on a 2d6 to score a hit. Unfortunately they also must subtract 3 from each individual roll because of his magic armor. They must score 8 hits in a single round to bring Conan down or there is no effect (7 or less won't do it).
2b) Conan need only roll a 6+ to score a hit and he gets 8 attacks per round and rolls 3d6 (because of the magic sword).
After roughly 12 rounds Conan is surrounded by the bodies of 50 dead pict warriors. Although probably they would have fled much sooner. A super-hero plus magic weapons and armor is a terrible sight to behold (an army unto himself as Gygax once wrote). Bottom line is simple footsoldiers can no more kill a super hero decked out in magic weapons/armor than they can kill a dragon. No surprise.
The other way this battle could have gone. Is that Conan could have split off from his unit of horsemen at the start of combat, although it is slow work for a super-hero, he could dispatch 1 unit of light foot every 6 turns or so. Of course this is pretty slow going when seen from a birds eye view as it only took 1 turn for the single unit of light horse to dispatch 50 pict footman. Had the pict warriors switched to a more favorable weapon vs. an unmounted foot super-hero (morning stars or flails) they would have had a chance at over powering him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Apr 25, 2020 12:38:51 GMT -6
Mea Culpa. Comparing pages 23 and 32. Army Commanders and Heroes. Heroes do not fight in mass combat as 4 units. They cannot kill 1-4 unit (25-100 men) per turn. They, add 1 to the score of each dice rolled. ... Counting a Hero or Superhero as a commander makes sense, but how do you reconcile the above with "Either Heavy Foot, Armored Foot. Light Horse, etc., depending on arms and situations and can fire missiles equal to the same number of men, vs. regular opponents but only once vs. fantastic opponents." This seems to support 1:4 figures for Hero:regular troops in mass combat and 1:1 on the Appendix E. If the 1:4 part was for man-to-man, then why bother with "Heavy Foot, Armored Foot. Light Horse, etc."? If it was meant refer to the 1:1 table, then they would be clad and armed per Appendix B rather than referenced back to Appendix A. |
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on Apr 27, 2020 2:46:07 GMT -6
I understand that hero/suphero is a separate figurine and can engage in mass combat. Example: A lonely foot knight (AF) Hero fights against enemy Heavy Foot detachment. Let's assume 1:10 scale. Hero rolls 4d6 and kills on 5,6. Enemies roll 5d6 (HF vs AF, 1 die per 2 men) and need four 6's to eliminate a hero.
|
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on Mar 6, 2021 6:18:52 GMT -6
Let's suppose that 10 Heavy Horse charge at 20 Swiss with halberds. Melee is fought in a confined space 5" wide. The swiss form a close formation (4x5), Heavy Horse are 2x5. The latter are armed with lances, so they can fight the hedgehog.
I faced following problems:
- How many ranks of Swiss can fight?
- What is their fighting capability? Armored Foot or Heavy Foot?
- Can they employ "mass schock" effect?
That's how I understand it. The swiss attacks as AF and defend as HF, as long as they are in close formation (so basically until there are 10 figures, 2x5). AF vs HF means that 1 die for 3 men is rolled. Another die is added for halberds. Moreover, I allowed "mass schock", so another 2 dice were added. At the end, I decided that 2 ranks can fight because of their long weapons. So it was 8 die, with 6 kills. As for the HH, they rolled against HF, adding one die for impetus in the 1st round only; so first 4 dice per man, then 3 dice.
5 rounds of simultaneous melee were fought. Losses: 18 Swiss and 5 Heavy Horse. I didn't use post-melee morale, only checked when half of the Swiss was dead (a roll of 12!).
What do you think? Perhaps I should allow only 1st rank of the Swiss? Maybe they should attack as HF without mass schock?
|
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on Mar 6, 2021 7:50:48 GMT -6
Another isue. If I allowed 2 ranks of 5 Swiss footmen fighting, how many dice should they roll actually? It's 1 die per 3 men (supposing AF vs HH), but should it be 2 dice (3rd in the 1st rank and 3rd in 2nd rank) or rather 3 (3rd in 1st, 1st in 2nd [6th one] and 4th in 2nd [9th one])?. Same for mass schock and additional die for long weapons. It makes a big difference if we roll 8 or 11 dice.
Another question is how we count hits (kills). HH vs AF rolls 2 dice per men, with 5-6 kills. I got 5 HH in a rank. Should I roll 2 dice for every knight, or rather a pack of dice for all of them (10)? Let's suppose I rolled 6 & 6, 6 & 5, 1 & 5, 5 & 6, 6 & 2. How many Swiss I did kill? 5 or 8? I guess only a first rank should count, but perhaps a knight can kill many enemies in a row, in order to drive open section in the phalanx/hedgehog and expose flanks? That's where impetus bonus/charge rule comes in, it could be pretty devastating.
|
|
|
|
Post by Punkrabbitt on Mar 6, 2021 8:38:04 GMT -6
Remember, each figure is representing 20 guys in a square footprint, so I would think the base is multiple ranks already and so only the front row should be fighting. MAYBE pikes would allow the second rank to fight, but even then it's a bit iffy.
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 6, 2021 14:14:31 GMT -6
Let's suppose that 10 Heavy Horse charge at 20 Swiss with halberds. Melee is fought in a confined space 5" wide. The swiss form a close formation (4x5), Heavy Horse are 2x5. The latter are armed with lances, so they can fight the hedgehog. I faced following problems: - How many ranks of Swiss can fight? - What is their fighting capability? Armored Foot or Heavy Foot? - Can they employ "mass schock" effect? That's how I understand it. The swiss attacks as AF and defend as HF, as long as they are in close formation (so basically until there are 10 figures, 2x5). AF vs HF means that 1 die for 3 men is rolled. Another die is added for halberds. Moreover, I allowed "mass schock", so another 2 dice were added. At the end, I decided that 2 ranks can fight because of their long weapons. So it was 8 die, with 6 kills. As for the HH, they rolled against HF, adding one die for impetus in the 1st round only; so first 4 dice per man, then 3 dice. 5 rounds of simultaneous melee were fought. Losses: 18 Swiss and 5 Heavy Horse. I didn't use post-melee morale, only checked when half of the Swiss was dead (a roll of 12!). What do you think? Perhaps I should allow only 1st rank of the Swiss? Maybe they should attack as HF without mass shock? There are a lot of rules in play with this scenario. First, refer to p15 Number of ranks fighting: 1 rank. If your Swiss were armed with pikes this would all be moot. Since you specified halberds, then the heavy horse can charge. p18 says for Cavalry Charge that Swiss with polearms automatically stand. So, they need not check morale. Additionally, p14 lists Swiss as Lightfoot (Special: see Combat Table). As you point out, in close formation they attack as AF and defend as HF, plus an extra "mass shock" die for every two men attacking. Finally, the impetus bonus p17 is an optional rule. Use it if you like. What you presented is 20 Swiss halberds with 5 men 4 ranks deep and 10 heavy horse with 5 men 2 ranks deep. First round with the heavy horse charging into melee: 5 HH vs HF= 15 dice +1 impetus = 16 dice 5,6 kills. 5 AF vs HH= 1 die +1 die for weapon +2 mass shock = 4 dice 6 kills. If melee continues further rounds see p16 excess troops moving to overlap. This will apply to both sides. |
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on Mar 6, 2021 14:58:09 GMT -6
Funny, but 2nd edition lacks this one. Overlap rule is missing also. Warriors of Mars has 1 rank only, but Swords & Spells allows long spears from the 2nd rank. That's way I had doubts.
As for the impetus bonus. I've always interpreted it as an additional die for every "man" charging, so it would be 15 dice + 5 for impetus.
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 7, 2021 19:38:29 GMT -6
As for the impetus bonus. I've always interpreted it as an additional die for every "man" charging, so it would be 15 dice + 5 for impetus. I thought about this some more and if I was going to use an impetus bonus I think I would elect to add a +1 to the die roll instead of extra dice. So, HH vs HF would be 3 dice per man 4,5,6 kills on first round of a charge. AF vs HH would be 1 die per three men 5,6 kills. This would seem to be a more balanced approach. edit: I accidentally deleted my previous post. Just to reiterate, the impetus rule implies adding an extra die to the Table. HH vs HF would be 4 dices per man 5,6 kills. AF vs HH would be 2 dice per three men 6 kills (+1 die for weapon). |
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on Mar 8, 2021 6:29:09 GMT -6
Yesterday I repeated the melee. 20 Swiss AF/HF (in a close formation 5x4) with halberds and pikes stood against 16 mounted knights. I allowed the 2nd rank of the Swiss to attack (as in Swords & Spells). Because 10 Swiss were effectively fighting, I gave them 11 dice (1 die per three man + weapon die + mass schock). Charging knights had impetus bonus, which I ruled as an additional die per man. As much as I understand that HH are overpowered, it makes no sense to me, if 5 HH would have same impetus bonus as, let's say, 3 AF. So HH had 20 dice in 1st round, than 15 dice. I rolled all dice at once (so no duels between figures). Casualties were remove from the rear for convenience, as filling the ranks was assumed. No flanking/overlapping, because of the confined area (city street). Post-melee morale was not used.
After 5 rounds of fierce melee, 19 Swiss and 5 knights laid dead.
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 8, 2021 12:32:27 GMT -6
The rules are explicit that HH will not charge a unit of Swiss pikes in close formation. If they are actually halberds then I would wonder why you would allow two ranks for the Swiss and not for the HH.
Pike = 15-25 ft
Lance = 10-12 ft
Halberd = 5-6 ft
Look at the MtM table to give an idea of relative weapons reach.
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 8, 2021 12:48:25 GMT -6
Charging knights had impetus bonus, which I ruled as an additional die per man. As much as I understand that HH are overpowered, it makes no sense to me, if 5 HH would have same impetus bonus as, let's say, 3 AF. If you give them +1 to all die rolls that will not work out as “the same”. HH will score a kill on 4,5,6 vs HF instead of 5,6. AF would score a kill on 5,6 against HH instead of a 6. The HH will still be throwing more dice than the AF and have effectively gone from a 33% chance of a kill to a 50% chance of a kill on each die. |
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on Mar 8, 2021 13:04:14 GMT -6
Perhaps the 1st rank had halberds and the 2nd pikes, long spears or some other pole weapon. And HH are powerful enough, as you mentioned  Now let's assume that the melee was fought on an open field, and another 5x4 Swiss figures were within 3" melee range, measuring from the point of contact. After HH charges the pikemen (or spearmen, if you like), the player controlling the Swiss wants his other detachment to join the melee. They not move this turn, so they can join. What happens now? How many Swiss can join? The whole body or only these few figures that were within 3? Can they attack the HH from the flank or must they wait till the 2nd round to overlap? |
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on Mar 8, 2021 13:11:44 GMT -6
Charging knights had impetus bonus, which I ruled as an additional die per man. As much as I understand that HH are overpowered, it makes no sense to me, if 5 HH would have same impetus bonus as, let's say, 3 AF. If you give them +1 to all die rolls that will not work out as “the same”. HH will score a kill on 4,5,6 vs HF instead of 5,6. AF would score a kill on 5,6 against HH instead of a 6. The HH will still be throwing more dice than the AF and have effectively gone from a 33% chance of a kill to a 50% chance of a kill on each die. Right, but I meant simply one die more, regardless of charging troops numbers. +1 works should be working fine. I did a similar thing for magic weapons (+1 to die roll, not an additional die). |
|
