Melee rounds

[Stormcrow]

Just wanna check something. When melee is engaged during a turn, there can be multiple rounds of melee all within the same turn, until morale or casualties break up the melee. You don't conduct one round of melee, then go to the next turn before conducting the second round of melee, right? You never go to the next turn until the melee is completely resolved.

For instance, opposing units join melee. They fight a round. Casualties and morale are taken, and the units are still engaged. Go straight to another round of melee. Continue until one unit is driven off or obliterated. Then go to the next turn.

[cooper]

Interesting question.

The rules do state that you, " repeat steps 1-6 for the remainder of the game." and that to adjudicate things like continuing missile fire, movement by other forces, and artillery makes me think there is a single exchange of blows per "turn".

The 1 minute turn does lend itself to understanding melee to be people killing dying over the course of one minute and if the command came for other maneuvers initiative would decide that turn by turn.

How else would you know when the horse charge hit the left flank of a group already engaged in combat?


Or are you referring to man to man combat? That was specifically answered in eldritch wizardry with the 6 segment round.

[Stormcrow]

Apr 2, 2011 19:55:27 GMT -6 cooper said:

The 1 minute turn does lend itself to understanding melee to be people killing dying over the course of one minute and if the command came for other maneuvers initiative would decide that turn by turn.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

How else would you know when the horse charge hit the left flank of a group already engaged in combat?

You perform all movement before melee. That can't happen.

Or are you referring to man to man combat? That was specifically answered in eldritch wizardry with the 6 segment round.

No, just Chainmail. And rules in Eldritch Wizardry don't apply to anyone just playing Chainmail with the man-to-man rules. I'm not talking about D&D here.

[Deleted]

After each side rolls thier alloted dice, casualties are removed, and morale is checked.

0-19 in morale difference for the lower side total means the melee continues.

A charging unit which wins a melee must continue its charge move and if it contacts the retreating unit again, they will have another round of melee.

[Matthew]

Although I initially thought this might be the case myself, my feeling is that melee goes from turn to turn and multiple rounds are not fought out in a single turn. [edit] Never mind, got confused apparently. Multiple melee rounds are indeed fought in the same turn until there is no longer contact between combatants.

[cooper]

My point was, what if two groups are in melee and a 3rd group is moving toward the melee? Surely you have to progress the 3rd group every minute towards groups 1 and 2.

If this is the case, groups 1 and 2 must follow the 1 minute melee round. Or am I confused?

[Stormcrow]

If all melee is resolved before the turn ends, then you never have an instance where a third group is moving toward another two groups locked in melee. If melee is not resolved before the turn ends, then you have situations that the rules can't handle by themselves.

[cooper]

The rules only can't handle themselves when you look at them reductio ad absurdum. If horses are moving and will enter melee in 3 turns, then the groups already in combat only get 3 turns of melee. Now, this may actually mean that dagger vs. pike melee means that the daggers get 9 attacks before the horses arrive, but still turns must be counted.

What am I missing?

How do you adjudicate multiple attacks by weapon class without turns? I know you don't want to reference EW, but gygax flat out states that the EW initiative rules were for those players wishing for more detailed rules covering man to man combat.

[Stormcrow]

Nope. Not gonna feed the troll anymore.

[howandwhy99]

I understand the conversation is over, but I wanted to point out that of you are taking the CHAINMAIL rules as a single work, then you are referring to a separate game than OD&D. It is a game in and of itself. There was no "3rd party" combatant able to come into the combat, because there is no "outside of combat" to come from for the game.

All that changes with the 3LBs. Now space continues beyond the battlefield and time doesn't end with the end the battle. Nor does the game.

So I, for my own rule set, would go with combats going over 10 rounds entering new turns and outsiders entering combat advancing according to the time scale the game is currently in.

EDIT:
(I use WS&IM which uses 3 minute "naval turns" and having combats in 1 minute rounds means a lot of ship actions will still effect play during melees.)

[chicagowiz]

Apr 2, 2011 8:57:13 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

Just wanna check something. When melee is engaged during a turn, there can be multiple rounds of melee all within the same turn, until morale or casualties break up the melee. You don't conduct one round of melee, then go to the next turn before conducting the second round of melee, right? You never go to the next turn until the melee is completely resolved.

For instance, opposing units join melee. They fight a round. Casualties and morale are taken, and the units are still engaged. Go straight to another round of melee. Continue until one unit is driven off or obliterated. Then go to the next turn.

As far as I read it/understand it, you are correct in this interpretation for Chainmail mass combat. Melee is resolved until either the unit is destroyed through casualties, or post-melee morale checks force the units apart.

In the horse example above...

HF HF HF HF
HH HH HH


------------- MH MH MH

(the dashes are to force spacing)

The HF/HH need to resolve their melee and determine the final outcome (one side or other destroyed, one side or other moves back in good order, one side or other retreating or routing) before the next turn which MH can join the melee.

There are a number of situations that both MH and HH both melee the HF in the subsequent turn:
1. If HF are forced back in good order, both MH and HH can move forward (or charge) to engage.
2. If the HH are forced back in good order, both MH and HH can move forward or await the HF to approach.

I haven't thought about the M2M rules and using CM for OD&D enough to comment on how it would work in that case.

[aldarron]

Apr 12, 2011 2:09:54 GMT -6 howandwhy99 said:

I understand the conversation is over, but I wanted to point out that of you are taking the CHAINMAIL rules as a single work, then you are referring to a separate game than OD&D. It is a game in and of itself. There was no "3rd party" combatant able to come into the combat, because there is no "outside of combat" to come from for the game.

All that changes with the 3LBs. Now space continues beyond the battlefield and time doesn't end with the end the battle. Nor does the game...

<shrug> I don't have any opinion or concern one way or another, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. If we are talking about mass combat and there is "no outside of combat" then how do you account for the arrival of reinforcements or other forces during the course of the battle? I mean you can't start the battle of Helms Deep with Eomer already on the field or the Battle of 5 armies with the eagles there at the start.

[Stormcrow]

Apr 12, 2011 9:11:03 GMT -6 aldarron said:

how do you account for the arrival of reinforcements or other forces during the course of the battle?

A battle isn't one long melee. Exhaustion would prevent that. Other units can join a battle, and can join with other units to renew melee.

Driving back an enemy, or being driven back, then being joined by a friendly unit to attack again next turn, is effectively the same as a new unit joining an existing melee.

[cooper]

Alderran makes the point I was trying to make. I am open to the idea that CHAINMAIL rules as presented in the book do not account for reinforcements or the like as perhaps hinted at in the rules for baggage. Forces off the map are simply gone, like chess pieces. This is re-iterated in the morale rules that if an apponents forces are forced off the map, they are gone for good.



However, I would like to present to ideas from CHAINMAIL that inspired gygax's idea of the turn vs. the round. The turn in CHAINMAIL is 1 min. This, as stormcrow says can involve many "rounds" of combat. The first example is from mass combat:



So, on the 1st round of blows, HH will attack as MH, but on further exchanges, they will fight as HH again.

second from Man to Man:



Notice the use of the word "rounds" for the back and forth of attacks.


Stormcrow is right. There are indeed multiple rounds of combat fought when forces are engaged within a single turn. Initiative is not rolled again until the multiple rounds of combat have been resolved. But it begs the question (that gygax answered) If turns have a value of 1 min, why must rounds be infinite? Can rounds be 6 seconds long? 10 seconds? What would be the impact on the game (positive or negative) when putting a finite number of rounds of combat until the next turn? ChicagoWiz if you're reading, how would having a finite number of rounds effected your most recent game do you think? The idea strikes me as a "stalemate" as happens in chess. After 10 rounds (or 6) then combat goes to the next turn perhaps.

This reminds of the rules in ad&d where you are "locked in combat" with your opponent until one or the other dies, fails a morale check etc. This doesn't (in d&d) preclude that a finite number of rounds constitute a turn so as to account for the movement of forces not so engaged.

[howandwhy99]

Apr 12, 2011 9:11:03 GMT -6 aldarron said:

<shrug> I don't have any opinion or concern one way or another, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. If we are talking about mass combat and there is "no outside of combat" then how do you account for the arrival of reinforcements or other forces during the course of the battle? I mean you can't start the battle of Helms Deep with Eomer already on the field or the Battle of 5 armies with the eagles there at the start.

You may know better than I do about whether or not there are turns in CHAINMAIL. But an outside force in that game, which comes in late is scheduled to come in on a specific round after the 1st. They aren't coming from anywhere, but entering the playing surface on queue. Those that leave the battle area are gone as well, be it routing or retreating.

My own ideas were for the OD&D game, which I take as a different animal.

[chicagowiz]

Apr 12, 2011 10:37:44 GMT -6 cooper said:

ChicagoWiz if you're reading, how would having a finite number of rounds effected your most recent game do you think? The idea strikes me as a "stalemate" as happens in chess. After 10 rounds (or 6) then combat goes to the next turn perhaps.

It wouldn't have affected me this past game, since the most rounds I went were 3 rounds within a turn. I don't think rounds would be infinite and I have a feeling that at some point, the weight of repeated rolls is going to take effect and decide the conflict.

I get the impression that rounds were never set up as a specific amount of time in Chainmail - a round could be 6 seconds due to lucky casualties or 30 seconds because there were some fierce back-and-forths. I don't think the rules were set up so you could schedule reinforcements to join a melee unless they were already within range (the 3" draw)

Yes, the MH may want to reinforce and assist the HH attacking, but unless the melee ends with one side or the other pushed back or in retreat/rout, the melee continues. I take this as a more abstract thing than the actual blow-by-blow to be timed so that the next force appears at a specific minute/second. If the HH survives the melee so the MH can come assist, great! If not, then that's what happens in combat and the reinforcements were in vain. Should've pair them up in the initial attack.

[Stormcrow]

Apr 12, 2011 10:37:44 GMT -6 cooper said:

If turns have a value of 1 min, why must rounds be infinite?

They're not "infinite," they're "indefinite." After a few rounds of melee, if your troops haven't been driven back, they're going to be exhausted and will end up breaking anyway. Read the rules on fatigue carefully. Melee will be resolved relatively quickly.

[chicagowiz]

Stormcrow - that's easily missed - 3 rounds of melee introduces fatigue... not 3 TURNS. Excellent point.

[aldarron]

Apr 12, 2011 15:05:43 GMT -6 chicagowiz said:

Stormcrow - that's easily missed - 3 rounds of melee introduces fatigue... not 3 TURNS. Excellent point.

Yep, I apply that rule to my OD&D games, but reason it as 3 rounds per level or HD. Inexperienced characters tire quickly!

[sepulchre]

Aldarron wrote:

but reason it as 3 rounds per level or HD. Inexperienced characters tire quickly!

Could also apply the less granular ruling in Sword & Spells...

Creatures with two or fewer hit dice will be subject to fatigue if they meet certain conditions (8 Swd&Sp):

[cooper]

All the following is from Pg. 15&16. morale and charging question concerning combat rounds (within a turn). This question is about movement over rounds and about when a turn ends by looking at "post melee morale". Will most turns end on a roll of 20+? Perhaps not. And I think PMM carries much more weight in the rules than I previously suspected.

Post melee morale:


Turn 1.
Round 1.

a group of heavy foot (12") get within 3" of a band of orcs (9"). Melee takes place. damage is done. Post melee morale if it's 0-19 then another round of melee (within the 1 minute turn) continues. Easy enough, after 3 rounds of this (a real slug fest) fatigue will set in.

Now, lets say in the 1st round, the orcs get pushed back 1 move in good order (9") as the HF hit them pretty hard in the first round. If the heavy foot began the turn charging at the orcs, they would be required to continue the charge. In this scenario the HF charged 4" and so must continue for another 8" which puts them 1" away from the pushed back orcs. Melee continues to round 2. An example of this is given in the book.


Now, there is a great benefit to charging namely:


But there is a danger as well. Being forced to continue a charge might put you within 3" of a larger even hidden force of chaos on either side of the road which could be poised to crush the still charging knights--perhaps putting orc forces on three sides! If the initial orc attack was a ploy to draw in mounted knights (who must make a morale check or charge regardless of orders!)

then on round 3 of the same turn they might be surrounded and butchered!

Round 1 using sword and spell scales for CM (1" mounted knights vs. 5/8" orcs)


Charge!


Round 2 Run away!


Continue Charge! We've got those orcs on the run now!


wait....what's that behind the trees....

Round 3. Oh no! Ogres! (1 5/8")


Ogres will get flank attack (+1 pip per die) and knights are fatigued (heavy foot is now light foot!)
------------

Is everyone in agreement with the above? multiple rounds of melee in the 1 minute turn. Of note here is that a wizard would have only cast a single spell this entire time as they cast once per turn.

QUESTION
It says only that if you charged you "must" continue the charge to your full movement rate, but if you don't charge and your opponent moves back from a morale loss, can you "decide" to continue the rest of your movement rate? After all, on round 2 of a combat forces within 3" but not in melee may move up to 1/2 their move and even flank the opposing force.



So the rules allow non charging units to move within in a turn after round 1. Which would mean that a post melee morale of 0-99 could mean continued fighting if there was still movement left to be done during a round if the attacker wanted to persue the falling back/retreating/trap laying enemy. Or if not, then the turn ends and turn 2 begins.

Thoughts? This allows for a lot of strategic movement even within a turn. Traps, fall backs, perhaps much more than even 3 rounds of combat within a turn.

[Deleted]

I don't think this is correct. Don't get me wrong I am by no means a Chainmail expert, but I've read through those rules as well as a few others ( not including the various flavors of D&D ) and this makes no sense to me.

One round of melee combat is a turn. Or so I thought. And correct me if I am wrong but that is that nor the basic assumption in practically all miniature war games? Otherwise would it not mean that any missile fire or movement would be impossible until the melee was completed? So one could not reinforce one's forces if they were in melee?

Not trying to be a troll or anything- just curious....

[Matthew]

Sept 4, 2011 11:51:29 GMT -6 @gilgamesh said:

I don't think this is correct. Don't get me wrong I am by no means a Chainmail expert, but I've read through those rules as well as a few others ( not including the various flavors of D&D ) and this makes no sense to me.

One round of melee combat is a turn. Or so I thought. And correct me if I am wrong but that is that nor the basic assumption in practically all miniature war games? Otherwise would it not mean that any missile fire or movement would be impossible until the melee was completed? So one could not reinforce one's forces if they were in melee?

Not trying to be a troll or anything- just curious....

Yeah, it surprised me as well, but it is true and the rules are relatively unambivelant on the point. Whilst the "turn" is one minute, that can consist of multiple rounds of close quarters melee. Indeed, this idea is carried over into AD&D where combat is afterwards rounded up to the nearest turn. That is to say, even if combat only consists of one round it is treated as having taken up one turn (see DMG, p. 38).