Interpretations, Alterations & Additions

[Matthew]

So, thought it might be interesting to outline how my wife and I are playing Chain Mail, which is to say our interpretations of ambiguities, the things we have felt it desirable to change, and stuff we have added.

Turn Sequence

We do not use the simultaneous movement/written orders version, but for move/counter-move we wanted to adapt one element, which is that movement is divided into two halves. This allows for some counter movement by the first player at the half-way point (such as a counter charge). It also lets us split missile attacks from archers so that their double shooting rate does not ever occur during the missile phase. In other words, the first volley must generally come during the first half of the turn and the second volley in the second half of the turn. The exception to this is when a unit is charged, but the attacker is not within range during the first half of the turn. In this case the rule for hand axes/spears applies, which is that a unit can always shoot at an enemy charging them.

Charge movement occurs in the second half of movement only, as it is imagined that is when speed really increases. This also allows for "fake outs", as the player initially moving may or may not be charging.


Troop Types (Movement and Range)

Armoured Foot (Heavy Foot) have a move of 6" and a charge of 9".
Heavy Foot (Medium Foot) have a move of 9" and a charge of 12".
Light Foot (Light Foot) have a move of 12" and a charge of 15".

Archers, Arquibusiers, Crossbowmen, Long Bowmen, Turk Archers and Heavy Crossbowmen can be "light foot" or "medium foot" and have the respective movement rates.

Light Foot are assumed to have javelins
Heavy Foot (Medium Foot) are assumed to have either hand axes/spears or halberds
Armoured (Heavy Foot) are assumed to have halberds

Light Horse are assumed to have javelins
Medium Horse are assumed to have lances
Heavy Horse are assumed to have lances

Generally, weapons can be swapped out at no cost.

It is not clear why Medium Horse have a 15" range, possibly they are assumed to be equipped with bows or crossbows, judging from the horse archers range is lessened by 3" when shooting from horseback. For ease of play, we generally discard this suggestion, but it does reflect the tendency for Mamluk horse archers to dismount in order to shoot better.


Formation and Facing

When changing from column to line or line to column the front of the new formation should be at the same point as the front of the previous formation. A column is defined as any formation longer than it is wide, and a line is defined as any formation wider than it is long.

When units change facing, individual figures rotate on the spot, potentially leading to staggered formations in the case of oblique movement.


Fatigue

We treat this as an optional rule. However, when it is used we suggest that fighting in melee and charging count as "1.5" actions, whilst moving counts as "1" action. 5 consecutive actions brings fatigue.


More observations to come!

[Matthew]

Missile Fire

Despite some misgivings, we are using this more or less as written, with the exception that we prefer to roll dice for each attacker, rather than use the averages presented. So, unarmoured targets are hit on 4+, half armoured are hit on 5+ and armoured are hit on 6+. We take the view that light/medium/heavy or light/heavy/armoured are equivalent to the three armour values. Units can split their fire, between targets, but priority is determined by proximity (missile troops target the closest enemy most directly ahead of them.

Rate of Fire: Archers can:

1) Shoot once in the first half of the turn and once in the second
2) Move up to half in the first half of the turn and shoot once in the second
3) Shoot once in the first half of the turn and move up to half in the second
4) Move up to full movement and shoot once, if they beat the opponent's die roll (we do not take this to indicate initiative, but a roll made separately for the purpose)

Crossbowmen can do 2-4

Heavy Crossbowmen can do 2-4, except that between each they must spend a turn reloading, during which period they cannot move over half of their movement

Split Move and Fire: Mounted Archers and Crossbowmen do not need to beat the roll of their opponent to shoot when moving over half, but only if shooting at the half movement point (or before).

Pass Through Shooting: This can occur at any point during the first half of enemy movement.

Number of Ranks permitted to Fire: We are thinking of changing this in order to allow for mixed formations of spearmen and crossbowmen or bowmen to operate together. In other words, a second rank of crossbowmen (but not a third) could shoot past a first rank of spearmen.

Indirect Shooting: This can occur as normal, except that missile troops are generally unable to shoot past forward enemy units in order to hit rearwards ones. We are also thinking that crossbowmen should be allowed to do this.

Cover: Roll one die for every two missile troops.

Hand Axes, Spears and Javelins: Troops that have not yet shot and moved less than half in the first phase may shoot when charged instead of during the missile phase.

[Deleted]

I would recommend against indirect fire for crossbows, based on my experience with actually shooting medieval style crossbows. The quarrels essentially just rest on the bow, nothing would secure them if you elevate them excessively.

[Matthew]

Jun 9, 2012 9:51:08 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

I would recommend against indirect fire for crossbows, based on my experience with actually shooting medieval style crossbows. The quarrels essentially just rest on the bow, nothing would secure them if you elevate them excessively.

From what I gather, there is something of a controversy over whether they can or not, which I imagine is related to various definitions of "indirect" and differing crossbow designs. From a strictly game point of view, I am not too worried about it, but then it has basically yet to come up. Being able to shoot over enemy formations does suggest that missile troops might not prioritise by range and direction, but perhaps that refers to shooting over a melee.


Melee: We are pretty happy with the example troop classifications, the only item we want to change is for Turcopoles to also be available as light horse, and of course allowing missile troops to be classified as "medium" where warranted.

Charge: This is the first time in the rules we hear about curved movement, it is not how this is achieved [move, oblique change of facing, move?]. The most significant item is how charging troops continue after achieving victory before or in the first round. We interpret this to mean that the enemy is destroyed or retreats.

Missile Troops: It is not clear what the advantage is of interspersing missile troops amongst other infantry, presumably it addresses the issue whereby they cannot shoot from a second rank, but CM in general indicates mixed units are not expected. This relates directly to the question of "who fights?" when figures are not in edge to edge contact.

Melee Resolution: We usually remove casualties from the front rank and "shuffle up" rear rank figures to fill the space where possible. Since figures control the space 1" to either side with the intent of preventing interpenetration by the enemy, we assume this is usually reasonable.

Number of Ranks Fighting: This is significant for the question of close combat range, since only one rank fights the significant element is not how close figures are, but how close the units are. Since figures control the space 1" to either side, they probably control the space 1" in front of them too, making it necessary for enemy figures to enter that space in order to contest it (and not by duelling 1" control distances). Moreover, this correlates with the AD&D 1" combat distance. Generally, we expect figures to be in base to base and edge to edge contact in order to count as fighting, but the 1" rule would mean that adjacent figures with no enemy to their front also count, which we do as well [i.e. we allow combatants touching corner to corner to fight.

Post Melee Morale: The very first scenario my wife and I played a unit of heavy horse overwhelmingly won the first round of combat, obviously would continue to do so in subsequent rounds, and then surrendered to the enemy armoured foot on account of their superior numbers. This basically means that knights will surrender to a large enough force of peasants, regardless of the probability of victory, which is not satisfactory. Our quick a dirty solution is to only apply the results to the loser.

Flank Attack: Noticeably Armoured Foot get shafted in this situation as they get effectively no bonus for attacking from the flank, their combat ability being almost exactly the same as light horse, whilst heavy horse get a +1 to all of their dice. We recommend giving all units a +1 on their dice or the equivalent. In other words if they get 2 dice per figure at 6+, 1 extra die, and if they get 1 die per figure at 5+, then +1 to hit.

Rear Attack: This mentions that units attacked in the flank return casualties whilst those attacked in the rear do not. We assume tat the former only applies when such figures are not otherwise engaged [i.e. figures do not attack twice].

Retreat and Rout: The quick rally rules here are interesting, never really seen anything like them elsewhere.

Contact with Another Unit: It is interesting that seeing a unit retreat or rout has no effect on other friendly units unless they actually come into contact with them. We are thinking about requiring tests when seeing friendly units retreat.

Continued Retreat or Rout: Harassing enemy routers certainly seems like it will pay dividends, but so far we are yet to see any routed troops, so hard to say!

Miscellaneous Melee Information

1. Missiles cannot be shot into a melee: I kind of like the idea of shooting into an ongoing combat, reminds me of El Cid or Braveheart, but it certainly keeps things neater and explains why indirect shooting might occur even if target priority is determined by distance and direction.

2. Figures control the space 1" to either side to prevent infiltration: As mention above, this gives us a general idea of how close units have to be to be "in combat" and suggests who is eligible to fight in the front rank. Very useful information.

3. Units within 3" of a melee that have not moved more than half their movement can move up to 6" to join the combat. Interestingly, this would allow armoured foot to move up to 9" in a turn, which is partly justification for giving them a 3" charge distance. Regardless, this is a great rule for committing reserves to ongoing combats and really adds to the tactical decision making aspect of the game, forcing the player to decide whether he wants to commit to an action or keep his reserves fresh for the next turn.

4. In subsequent rounds of melee figures can be moved up to half their movement to envelop the flanks and rear of the enemy. This can get really messy on the tabletop, which is why I really appreciate the "overlap" solution adopted in Field of Glory. Still, so far we are playing it as written, not least because it gives light troops an advantage.

[Matthew]

Melee Options

Taking Prisoners: This is a pretty harsh rule, and not one we have been using, since it compounds the defeat of a unit even further. However, it is also perhaps an interesting antecedent of the AD&D "free hack".

Impetus Bonus: We extend this to all units [i.e. light foot are included] that are arrayed in close formation (1" or less apart), and by the same token do not allow heavy troop types in open formation (over 1" apart) to benefit.

Standing Cavalry: We are yet to use this rule and would prefer to avoid situations where cavalry are "caught" standing. I can see it happening for cavalry who are rallying, but it seems weak for the movement turn sequence to result in this.

Hedgehog: The first reference to only weapons of like length being able to mutually attack one another. Not a big fan of this ruling with regard to pikes. As far as the hedgehog formation itself goes, though, it is a pretty mainstream interpretation, slow speed, all around defence.


Morale

Instability Due to Excess Casualties: So far our experience is that this is by far the predominant way that units are destroyed. We interpret it to mean (and it is not perfectly clear) that once the first percentage of hits is inflicted the unit must test or be removed, and that after twice that percentage has been inflicted the unit is destroyed regardless. A pretty familiar concept in war gaming, which is to say units do not typically fight to the last man. This rule also makes it a good idea to use multiples of three for unit sizes.

Pike Charge: This is a harsh rule, but the bit about minimum unit size and formation is interesting. So far we have not had cause to have units check morale when charged by Swiss or Landsknecht Pikemen.

Cavalry Charge: This is probably one of the most problematic and interesting rules in the game. Not only do foot test morale against horse, but mutually charging units of horse test as well! There is no regard for the numbers of cavalry involved, meaning that theoretically a single heavy horseman could force a hundred to retreat. We are thinking carefully about how to modify this rule to take into account the relative strengths of the opposed sides, but so far nothing concrete.


Addendum to Archery Actions

Whilst I indicated above that archers were restricted to move or shoot every half phase, my intention is to ensure that one unit of bowmen moving to 15" range of another unit is not subject to two volleys of shooting whilst only able to return one. Consequently, our current ruling is that if units have equal shooting ranges and one advances to the edge, then they both shoot in the second half phase once.

[Matthew]

Historical Characteristics

This is probably the most interesting sections of the booklet, giving some guidance for army lists and modifying units.

Knights: The "obedience die" for this unit has got to suck, I am guessing that is the trade off for their morale stability advantages.

Levies: At a fixed rate, the point cost for this unit is not handled well, but the low morale ratings and manoeuvre performance make excellent sense and add some diversity to the game.

Mercenaries: Love this idea, units outside the normal army list are available at half the usual cost, but with the massive drawback that they might refuse to follow orders or even switch sides!

Peasants: Outside of specific scenarios where they are required, there is no place for ill armed peasantry in a real army.

Military Orders: Never surrender (such a result is ignored), never give in. Their elite nature gives them +1 on all morale tests, which gives us a hint at what the characteristics of elite heavy foot and the like might be.

English Long Bowmen: As if their archery was not enough, if they are stationary for two turns they plant stakes, which have a 3-in-6 chance of killing any cavalry that charge them. This is a bit of an overkill for my liking.

Maygars: Basically a light and medium cavalry army.

Mongols: When forced to retreat they do not need to rally, there do not appear to be any drawbacks balanced against this.

Poles: For purposes of morale all units are treated as either "elite" or one class higher. That is an interesting equivalence.

Russians: A heavy foot orientated army.

Saracens: Take no prisoners from the military orders; normal units are light horse, elite units are medium horse. Pretty reasonable. Interestingly Saracen foot are all light and bowmen, but do not use composite bows. That is a shame, as it makes sense for them to dismount in order to get the extra 3" of range over the crusader crossbows, which in turn risks getting charged by their medium horse (24"). We are thinking of playing it that way.

Scottish: Infantry can form "schiltrons", which are like stationary pike squares. However, instead of being virtually unassailable or killing 3-in-6 like the stakes of the Long Bowmen, cavalry attack at equal odds. This seems like a decent compromise.

Spanish: Most of their knights are medium horse, and half their cavalry are light and javelin armed with split move capability.

Tartars: Same as Mongols, but with less horse archers and the notation that their discipline is unlikely to be as high (meaning they will not automatically rally after a retreat).

Chinese: Mainly light and medium horse with light foot archers and crossbowmen, though a smattering of heavy foot is available. There is a note about the repeating crossbow, which has a 12" range and minus one to hit, making it only slightly better than javelins.

Koreans: Basically the same as the Chinese, but with less light horse and crossbowmen, but more heavy foot.

Japanese: This list consists of armoured foot (samurai), long bowmen (samurai with yumi, can be mounted, but no split move and shoot capability), medium horse, light foot (presumably ashiguru) and some heavy foot. They also get a smattering of arquibusiers. In the notations we also learn that Japanese medium horse is light in attack and heavy in defence, which does indeed average out to medium when using the combat tables. Evidently this mixed capability is a precursor to the Fantasy Supplement. They also have the knight's obedience issues, but it is not specified whether they have the same morale.

All the oriental forces have their own morale ratings for post melee assessment. It is not quite clear how these are related to the standard ratings, Chinese have regular and elite ratings for foot and horse, whist the Koreans have only a regular rating, which is the same as the Chinese elite. The Japanese regular foot and horse are rated one higher again, and samurai the same as heavy horse.


Army Commanders

Getting a plus one bonus on morale dice and attack dice is a heck of a benefit for any unit (except mercenaries who do not benefit) and the fact that it extends to figures within 12" makes the army commander a highly valuable game piece. Automatic rallying of retreating or routed units adds further to their usefulness, and it seems appropriate that the whole army tests morale if he is slain. So far I have not been inclined to use army commanders, maybe a consideration for the future!


Baggage

Amusingly, baggage is represented by a hidden zone on the player's table edge that if enemy troops come near causes them to leave play to loot the baggage camp, along with any nearby friendly troops who try to prevent them. This rule seems a bit quirky, I prefer the Field of Glory version where the camp is on the board and looting it gains victory points.


Weather

An optional rule that is checked every second turn, it has the potential to reduce movement or increase fatigue. Seems a bit superfluous and overly changeable for a minute by minute game.

[Matthew]

Now onto the more controversial stuff... the combat tables. We have been dealing with these recently by using "pips", in order to avoid the doubling effect of adding one die to a 5+ probability or a +1 to hit to multiple dice. The OD&D rules suggest in the instance of the troll attacking normal men that bonuses were not supposed to be applied to all attacks, which makes sense to me.

In other words a pip of +1 could improve one die from 6+ to 5+ or it could add an extra die needing 6+. This is particularly relevant for impetus charge bonus dice, halberds, pikes and "mass charge" dice. The bottom line would be that units get the following ratings:

Light Foot +0|−1|−2|−2|−3|−4
Heavy Foot +1|+0|−1|−1|−2|−3
Armoured Foot +2|+1|+0|+0|−1|−2
Light Horse +2|+1|+0|+0|−1|−2
Medium Horse +3|+2|+1|+1|+0|−1
Heavy Horse +4|+3|+2|+2|+1|+0

This does not quite reflect the tables, which are more like:

Light Foot +0|−1|−2|−1|−2|−3
Heavy Foot +1|+0|−1|−1|−2|−3
Armoured Foot +2|+1|+0|+0|−1|−2
Light Horse +3|+1|+0|+0|−1|−2
Medium Horse +5|+3|+1|+1|+0|−1
Heavy Horse +7|+5|+3|+3|+1|+0

In this case, it appears that cavalry attack 1, 2 and 3 points higher than expected, depending on their distance from the class of troops in question. That is to say:

Heavy Horse versus Light Horse/Armoured Foot (+1), versus Heavy Foot (+2), versus Light Foot (+3)
Medium Horse versus Heavy Foot (+1), versus Light Foot (+2)
Light Horse versus Light Foot (+1)

If it were not for heavy horse getting the benefit against light horse I would have been tempted to think it was another cavalry versus infantry bonus. Of course, the latter drawn up in close order has the possibility of using halberds or pikes to gain a +1 pip themselves. Anyway, our current point values only really take into account how much better horse are than the equivalent foot [i.e. 4 times better] before additional concerns are added.

Heavy Horse: 12 Points
Medium Horse: 8 Points
Light Horse: 4 Points
Heavy Foot: 3 Points
Medium Foot: 2 Points
Light Foot: 1 Point

[Finarvyn]

Awesome analysis, Matthew. Glad to see how things are working out when you play Chainmail. I wish my wife was more of a miniatures player and not just a role-player.

[Matthew]

Jun 13, 2012 13:49:28 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Awesome analysis, Matthew. Glad to see how things are working out when you play Chainmail. I wish my wife was more of a miniatures player and not just a role-player.

I am glad you are enjoying it, Marvin! Yeah, I am very lucky with my wife, though she is a very sore loser!


Skipping the Siege Rules and Man to Man combat for now...


The Fantasy Supplement

Scale: Apparently, elves and orcs are about 5' and dwarves, gnomes, goblins and kobolds about 4', assuming men are 6'; ogres and trolls are about 8' tall, whilst halflings and sprites are a mere 2'. The really large creatures are in excess of 10'. I imagine that scale height affects base size, which is significant for the capabilities of a unit, as it allows more or less individual figures to enter close combat relative to their enemies.

Sprites/Pixies: We are pretty unlikely to ever use these.

Halflings: Light Foot/Light Foot with improved missile attacks and the ability to be invisible in brush and woods. No points score is provided, but their morale is "5" and movement is 12".

Gnomes: Heavy Foot/Light Foot with movement 6", and morale 5; special ability to see in the dark and halve the number of kills scored by giants, trolls and ogres against them. They are worth 2 points per figure.

Dwarves: Same as gnomes, but we prefer to make them heavy foot/heavy foot.

Elves: Heavy Foot/Heavy Foot, movement 12", and morale 6; the ability to split move and shoot, see in darkness, and turn invisible. They are armed with bows that have a range of 18", and are exceedingly cheap at 4 points per figure. At the risk of "ramping them up" we like to treat elves as "armoured foot/heavy foot" and value them at around 7 points per figure.

Kobolds: Technically the same as goblins, but we prefer to treat them as light foot/light foot with the ability to see in the dark and a hatred of halflings. They have movement 6" and morale 5.

Goblins: Heavy Foot/Light Foot, movement 6", and morale 5; the ability to see in the dark and hatred of dwarves. They valued at 1.5 points per figure.

Orcs: Heavy Foot/Heavy Foot, movement 9", and morale 5; the ability to see in the dark, hatred of elves and enmity towards other orc units. They can be equipped with bows, which is a good precedent for crossbow armed medium foot.

Hobgoblins: Armoured Foot/Heavy Foot, movement 9", and morale 5; same as goblins, except valued at 2.5 points per figure.

Uruks: Armoured Foot/Armoured Foot, movement 9"(?), and morale 5; same as orcs, except valued at 2.5 points per figure. Referenced as "Giant Orcs". For this troop class we reduce movement to 6" and raise the value to 3 points per figure.

To summarise:

Class	Attack	Defence	Movement	Morale	Points
Halflings	Light Foot	Light Foot	12"	4	1
Gnomes	Heavy Foot	Light Foot	12"	4	1.5
Dwarves	Heavy Foot	Heavy Foot	9"	5	2
Elves	Armoured Foot	Heavy Foot	12"	5	2.5
Kobolds	Light Foot	Light Foot	12"	4	1
Goblins	Heavy Foot	Light Foot	12"	4	1.5
Orcs	Heavy Foot	Heavy Foot	9"	5	2
Hobgoblins	Armoured Foot	Heavy Foot	9"	5	2.5
Uruks	Armoured Foot	Armoured Foot	6"	6	3

[Matthew]

Thinking about using set values for "fall back", "retreat" and "rout". Basically:

Light Foot: 9/12/15
Medium Foot: 6/9/12
Heavy Foot: 3/6/9
Light Horse: 18/24/30
Medium Horse: 12/18/24
Heavy Horse: 6/12/18

[Sean Michael Kelly]

Jun 13, 2012 13:49:28 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Awesome analysis, Matthew. Glad to see how things are working out when you play Chainmail. I wish my wife was more of a miniatures player and not just a role-player.

I'd be tickled if my wife would play any type of games! :-P
But I'm a happy hubby for 21 years anyhow.

[kesher]

Matthew, this is freaking awesome. Be Thou Exalted! for taking the time to share it!

Modified to say: Holy Cripes! I just looked at your War & Battle project---that's also some awesome stuff!

Do you have a timeline for that? (not to hijack this thread...)

[Matthew]

Jun 20, 2012 14:13:31 GMT -6 kesher said:

Matthew, this is freaking awesome. Be Thou Exalted! for taking the time to share it!

Thanks! Glad you are enjoying it, Kesher!

Jun 20, 2012 14:13:31 GMT -6 kesher said:

Modified to say: Holy Cripes! I just looked at your War & Battle project---that's also some awesome stuff!

Do you have a timeline for that? (not to hijack this thread...)

Thanks! No completion date in mind at the moment, if that is what you are asking. Hopefully should pick up the baton again this year, but so many projects and distractions! If I can convince my wife, we will give it a go in play test soon, or maybe I will spring it as a trap on unsuspecting visiting holiday makers!

I should mention that I really like the corresponding demi-human to humanoid ratings in the above outline:

Halfling to Kobold
Gnome to Goblin
Dwarf to Orc
Elf to Hobgoblin
Man to Uruk

Onwards!

Heroes: Heroes have their points calculated on the assumption of heavy horse [4 × 5], so we base them on whatever their equipment is from that assumption [i.e. if medium horse is 6 points, then 4 × 5]. With regard to the fantasy table, their probabilities are reduced according to their equipment relative to other heroes and monsters (heavy horse is the base assumption, so medium horse/armoured foot is −1, light horse/heavy foot is −2, and light foot is −3). Rather than four simultaneous hits to kill, we assume four cumulative hits and ignore the rule about adding dice to a unit (their fighting ability is already a significant enough benefit). So, for example:

Light Foot Hero: 4 Points (−3 to hit in fantasy combat, +3 to be hit)
Medium Foot Hero: 8 Points (−2 to hit in fantasy combat, +2 to be hit)
Heavy Foot Hero: 12 Points (−1 to hit in fantasy combat, +1 to be hit)
Light Horse Hero: 16 Points (−2 to hit in fantasy combat, +2 to be hit)
Medium Horse Hero: 24 Points (−1 to hit in fantasy combat, +1 to be hit)
Heavy Horse Hero: 32 Points (+0 to hit in fantasy combat, +0 to be hit)

The penalties also apply to attacks against dragons with bows. Notably rangers are explicitly "fighters+" in this paradigm. As a result, they cost 6, 10, 14, 20, 28, and 36 points.

Super Heroes: The same rules for heroes apply to super heroes. We are not adverse to the possibility of hero-types between hero and superhero [i.e. worth 5, 6 or 7 men].

Seers, Magicians, Warlocks, Sorcerers, Wizards: Not sure what to do about these yet. How spell casters affect Chain Mail is a big question mark for us. I quite like the idea of mapping the to levels 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8, but that does not really work.

Werebears: Attack as four armoured foot, defend as four heavy foot, double attack dice near woods and bring some animals of like type to fight. Hard to see how this adds up to 20 points, I guess the animals are treated as some sort of foot man type.

Werewolves: Same as werebears, not sure we have cause to use either in the near future.

Ogres: Pretty straightforward, these are worth six heavy foot and cost 15 points (technically it would make better sense if they fought as amroured foot). We try to take a lead from D&D and make ogres the equivalent of heroes at 4 armoured foot (12 points). We use bases 1.5" by 1.5" instead of the 1" by 1" for footmen.

Trolls: In CM these fight as 3 armoured foot, but can only be slain by four specific types (heroes/superheroes, elemental, giants and magical weapons). This gives them a point value of 75, but their "(-)" morale rating is confusing, as it would seem necessary for figuring id the other side flees. We rate them as in D&D, which is to say as 6 armoured foot (18 points), but are undecided as to base size, maybe 2" by 2".

Giants: Worth 50 points, serve as small catapults and fight as 12 armoured foot (technically 12 heavy foot/12 armoured foot, and +1 die for weapon size, which works out as 12 armoured foot/12 armoured foot). Without their catapult ability they might be worth 30 points. We figure a 2" by 2" base is big enough for these, but larger is not out of the question.

Treants: Fight as 6 armoured foot (15 points), some special abilities to call up trees for aid, and vulnerabilities versus fire. We use them as written, except bumping the cost up to 18 points. Same size base as trolls.

Dragons: Never had cause to use these yet, when we do they will have to be a post of their own.

Rocs, Wyverns, Griffons: These fight as four light horse and defend as four heavy horse, but can fly 48", so 20 points is a decent guess. Their ability to transport men 36" is suggestive of an "air cavalry", which I quite like.


The next few entries we basically have not considered how to use yet, but they are pretty cool to read. I notice that giant wolves move as medium horse, unless being ridden, in which case they move as heavy horse. All very interesting in conjunction with the rules about rocs.

Elementals: Not sure about these.

Basilisks or Cockatrices: Defend as Lycanthropes, attack with a special ability only.

Chimera: Confusingly, these are mixed up with griffons and wyverns as well as hippogriffs. The bottom line is you can make them whatever you like, I think.

Giant and Dire Wolves: Light Horse, can be slain on the fantasy table.

Giant Spiders and Insects: Left up to the game master, basically.

Ghouls: These attack as light horse, defend as heavy horse, and cost ten points. They have a morale rating of 10, interestingly, a paralysis ability and a penalty in sunlight.

Wights: Same as ghouls, I will be wanting to change them up a bit.

Wraiths: Interestingly, these are worth 10 points, have morale 10, and either fight as two armoured foot or two medium horse, which is suggestive of there have at one time been an equivalence of the sort suggested here. The way "touch paralysis" works is also defined here, which is useful for the above two monsters. These three types require some thinking.

Zombies: Fight as heavy foot, 6" movement.


Alterations

Been thinking about morale ratings and stability checks. I notice the rules say "over" the percentage, we have been playing "on the percentage". The latter is probably fairer overall, I think [i.e. no taking odd numbers of troops to maximise efficiency]. However, I now think that failing the first stability check should result in a rout, rather than destruction. Also, a rout should probably take place on the next turn of the unit in question. Doing it immediately makes sense in the context of pass through shooting, but otherwise not so much.

[cooper]

Troll morale (-) means what it means in d&d, which is to say they never suffer morale loss.

Concerning wizards, My intuition tells me that wizards are name level at 11 so as to map the rough progression of spells (6th level spells at 12th level). If you look at 0e xp progression, you will see that fighters and wizards reach 9th and 11th level at 240,000 and 300,000 respectively. So perhaps 5/7/8/10, which would mean that "seers" would also get their required fireball and matches the hero, hero+1, superhero-1, superhero progression a bit better.

[Matthew]

Jun 21, 2012 9:43:14 GMT -6 cooper said:

Troll morale (-) means what it means in d&d, which is to say they never suffer morale loss.

Right, but the morale value refers to the post combat check, and without a value for the troll it is rather difficult to figure out the result for those engaged with it [i.e. whether they stay and fight, fall back, retreat, rout or surrender].

Jun 21, 2012 9:43:14 GMT -6 cooper said:

Concerning wizards, My intuition tells me that wizards are name level at 11 so as to map the rough progression of spells (6th level spells at 12th level). If you look at 0e xp progression, you will see that fighters and wizards reach 9th and 11th level at 240,000 and 300,000 respectively. So perhaps 5/7/8/10, which would mean that "seers" would also get their required fireball and matches the hero, hero+1, superhero-1, superhero progression a bit better.

That is a good point about the spell levels.

[Alex]

You seem to have a formula or system for computing point values. How are you going about determining what factors cost? And what is the [4x5] you keep mentioning under Hero? I perceived that CM seems to offer equivalences for many troop types for various alignments, not just in terms of the humanoid troops as you have observed, but also things like:
Roc (L), Wyvern (C), Griffon (N)
Giant Wolf (C) and Horse (any)
Hero (L), Lycanthrope (N), Wraith (C) [or Anti-Hero (C) if you don't like my reasoning]
Lycanthropes normally act as Heroes but are boosted to Super-Hero when near their woods.
Wraiths attack less as than Heroes but they get Hero and Super-Hero morale effects and paralyze and can't be killed by any number of normal men.

You were also confused by the mixing of Chimera with Griffon, Hippogriff, and Wyvern. Understandable if you take the narrow view of Chimera == the well known monster represented in D&D. However, taking the broader definition of Chimera, it is a monstrous combination of two or more beings. Griffon = Eagle + Lion, Hippogriff = Eagle + Horse, Wyvern = Dragon + Serpent. Makes sense to me in that context.

[Matthew]

Jun 28, 2012 11:52:22 GMT -6 Alex said:

You seem to have a formula or system for computing point values. How are you going about determining what factors cost? And what is the [4x5] you keep mentioning under Hero?

Ah, right, basically the creatures worth multiple men in CM are usually worth the same multiple of points. So, a hero (4 men) is worth 4 heavy horse (5 points each) or 20 points. An ogre is worth 6 armoured foot (15 points) and a giant is worth 12 armoured foot and a heavy catapult (though technically only attacks as a light catapult, if I recall). Anyway, the adjusted formula I use is:

Light Foot: 1
Medium Foot: 2
Heavy Foot: 3
Light Horse: 4
Medium Horse: 6
Heavy Horse: 8

A samurai (heavy horse/light horse) would thus be 6 points, the average of heavy and light.

Jun 28, 2012 11:52:22 GMT -6 Alex said:

I perceived that CM seems to offer equivalences for many troop types for various alignments, not just in terms of the humanoid troops as you have observed, but also things like:

Roc (L), Wyvern (C), Griffon (N)
Giant Wolf (C) and Horse (any)
Hero (L), Lycanthrope (N), Wraith (C) [or Anti-Hero (C) if you don't like my reasoning]

A good observation, yes.

Jun 28, 2012 11:52:22 GMT -6 Alex said:

Lycanthropes normally act as Heroes but are boosted to Super-Hero when near their woods.
Wraiths attack less as than Heroes but they get Hero and Super-Hero morale effects and paralyze and can't be killed by any number of normal men.

Yeah, I am undecided as to how to work out the points for special abilities.

Jun 28, 2012 11:52:22 GMT -6 Alex said:

You were also confused by the mixing of Chimera with Griffon, Hippogriff, and Wyvern. Understandable if you take the narrow view of Chimera == the well known monster represented in D&D. However, taking the broader definition of Chimera, it is a monstrous combination of two or more beings. Griffon = Eagle + Lion, Hippogriff = Eagle + Horse, Wyvern = Dragon + Serpent. Makes sense to me in that context.

Ah, right, no my confusion was actually over them having two listings in CM, one under Roc and one under Chimera.

[Matthew]

If we do change the morale rules so that units retreat or rout after suffering one third casualties and failing a stability test, we are considering having the move take place in the following turn. So, a unit of medium horse that suffers a rout at the end of combat would be turned 180 degrees, then in the following turn moved 12" in the first movement phase, and 12" in the second movement phase.

The difference between a retreat and rout will probably be a matter of degree of stability failure. If we say 7+ is required to pass, 4-6 represents a retreat, and 2-3 represents a rout we might not be too far off base. By the same token, a "1" or less could represent surrender, which would be possible if the unit has a penalty to its morale [i.e. instead of having heavy troops pass on 6+ and light troops on 8+ you could describe them as having a bonus and penalty of one point to morale, respectively].

[Matthew]

Been thinking about the movement rates of some of the humanoids and demi-humans. That is to say, dwarves, gnomes, goblins and kobolds all move slower than their type would suggest, but halflings move 12". Something worrying about that. Anyway, if they did continue to have slower movement rates it might be offset by allowing them to ignore movement penalties in certain terrain types, such as tunnels, but also broken ground and forest maybe.

[philotomy]

Jul 3, 2012 6:13:47 GMT -6 Matthew said:

Been thinking about the movement rates of some of the humanoids and demi-humans. That is to say, dwarves, gnomes, goblins and kobolds all move slower than their type would suggest, but halflings move 12".

I'm not happy with a halfling move of 12". I'd probably drop it to 9" as light foot.

[Finarvyn]

Jun 28, 2012 15:00:22 GMT -6 Matthew said:

Jun 28, 2012 11:52:22 GMT -6 Alex said:

You seem to have a formula or system for computing point values. How are you going about determining what factors cost? And what is the [4x5] you keep mentioning under Hero?

Ah, right, basically the creatures worth multiple men in CM are usually worth the same multiple of points. So, a hero (4 men) is worth 4 heavy horse (5 points each) or 20 points. An ogre is worth 6 armoured foot (15 points) and a giant is worth 12 armoured foot and a heavy catapult (though technically only attacks as a light catapult, if I recall). Anyway, the adjusted formula I use is:

Light Foot: 1
Medium Foot: 2
Heavy Foot: 3
Light Horse: 4
Medium Horse: 6
Heavy Horse: 8

A samurai (heavy horse/light horse) would thus be 6 points, the average of heavy and light.

You might consider re-doing this and going with the sum rather than the average.

If a unit is light foot/medium foot, the numbers are 1/2 which average to 1.5 points. If you round up, LF/MF is as expensive as MF/MF but if you round down it costs the same as LF/LF but is better.

Just a thought.

[Matthew]

Jul 3, 2012 8:36:36 GMT -6 philotomy said:

I'm not happy with a halfling move of 12". I'd probably drop it to 9" as light foot.

Me neither, but at the moment we are using:

Light Foot: 12"
Medium Foot: 9"
Heavy Foot: 6"

Knocking the small races down to 9" movement works okay:

Halflings: 9"
Gnomes: 9"
Dwarves: 9"
Kobolds: 9"
Goblins: 9"

...but light foot needs some sort of advantage to offset the loss of 3", hence my thoughts on some sort of movement penalty reduction. On the other hand, maybe the size of the stands would be sufficient.

Jul 3, 2012 8:59:16 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

You might consider re-doing this and going with the sum rather than the average.

If a unit is light foot/medium foot, the numbers are 1/2 which average to 1.5 points. If you round up, LF/MF is as expensive as MF/MF but if you round down it costs the same as LF/LF but is better.

Just a thought.

Hmmn. I would not recommend rounding the numbers up or down, a 1½ point value should be used as is. So, 12 goblins would be 18 points [1½ × 12]. Of course, if fractions are unwelcome all the point values could be doubled.

[philotomy]

Jul 4, 2012 4:06:01 GMT -6 Matthew said:

Me neither, but at the moment we are using:

Light Foot: 12"
Medium Foot: 9"
Heavy Foot: 6"

Knocking the small races down to 9" movement works okay...

Yeah, that's what I was getting at: 9" for the small stature light foot seems reasonable, to me. Such a base move assumption also explains why medium foot (CM heavy foot) dwarves move at 6", rather than 9".

...but light foot needs some sort of advantage to offset the loss of 3", hence my thoughts on some sort of movement penalty reduction. On the other hand, maybe the size of the stands would be sufficient.

Hmm. Not sure. My gut reaction is to say they shouldn't have an offset to their abilities to compensate. If an offset is required for game balance, I'd probably lean towards making it in their point cost.

[Matthew]

Jul 4, 2012 8:21:13 GMT -6 philotomy said:

Yeah, that's what I was getting at: 9" for the small stature light foot seems reasonable, to me. Such a base move assumption also explains why medium foot (CM heavy foot) dwarves move at 6", rather than 9".

Right, and I think halflings have a 9" movement in the Monster Manual, whilst all the other movement rates are the same. On the other hand, it is not like giants get an increased movement rate for their size.

Jul 4, 2012 8:21:13 GMT -6 philotomy said:

Hmm. Not sure. My gut reaction is to say they shouldn't have an offset to their abilities to compensate. If an offset is required for game balance, I'd probably lean towards making it in their point cost.

Points may be the way to go. At the moment I cannot see goblins filling an effective role in an army. Mind, if the statistics were reversed it would make better sense [i.e. Light Foot in attack, Heavy Foot in defence].

[philotomy]

Jul 5, 2012 5:20:41 GMT -6 Matthew said:

On the other hand, it is not like giants get an increased movement rate for their size.

Good point. I guess stature isn't the sole consideration. I don't think it would feel quite right for most giants to have a very high movement rate.

At the moment I cannot see goblins filling an effective role in an army.

I'm sure their hobgoblin cousins think the same; they are goblins, after all...

[Matthew]

Jul 5, 2012 6:08:38 GMT -6 philotomy said:

Good point. I guess stature isn't the sole consideration. I don't think it would feel quite right for most giants to have a very high movement rate.

Indeed, there is a kind of tension between size and "quickness", giants are big and slow, halflings are small and quick. By contrast, I never think of dwarves as being small and quick, but goblins...

Jul 5, 2012 6:08:38 GMT -6 philotomy said:

I'm sure their hobgoblin cousins think the same; they are goblins, after all...

No doubt they think of them as "arrow fodder".

[Matthew]

Really interesting to note the chances for standing against a charge were very different in the LGTSA Miniatures rules:

Light Foot: 6, 7, 9
Medium Foot: 4, 5, 6
Heavy Foot: 3, 4, 5
Light Horse: 5, 6, 7
Medium Horse: 4, 5, 6
Heavy Horse: 3, 4, 5

Very, very different from CM...

Light Foot: 8, 9, 10
Medium Foot: 7, 8, 9
Heavy Foot: 6, 7, 8
Light Horse: 5, 6, 7
Medium Horse: 4, 5, 6
Heavy Horse: 3, 4, 5

I definitely prefer the earlier LGTSA version.