Chainmail Flannelgraph or.....

[derv]

.....My rooky attempts at learning by playing

As I try to more fully appreciate Chainmail, I put together a small 25 point skirmish.

Peasant Revolt in Darley Dale

Lord Danial Edmunds has become cold to the plight of the serfs in his domain of Darley Dale. A poor harvest and increased demands from the King has led many to go without food for their families. This has all come to a head as the peasants take up arms and march toward Lord Daniel Edmunds estate, burning fields and holdings along the way. In response, Lord Daniel Edmunds has deployed a small force of constables to squash the up rising before it spreads further. Word has gotten back to the angry peasants of these troops arrival and archers have been placed along the woods edge in ambush.

Peasants (LF) 18= 9 points
Archers (LF) 4= 16 points =25 points

Constables (MH) 6= 24 points

I elected to use the turn/counter turn sequence and gave the MH first move. A road runs through the center of the board and woods surround the playing field. Medium Horse recieve a +6" road bonus. I chose not to use the Fatigue rules, peasant obeying order rules, and the post-melee morale rules. But, excess casualties morale and cavalry charge morale rules were used. Counters were used from Juniorgeneral.org.



Turn One:

Constables move 18"+6"= 24" along road holding a tight formation.
Q: are facing and formation penalties read in inches ordo they represent a fraction of a full move?

At 18" they changed formation from collumn to line and outside units turned oblique. Outside units lose road bonus, inside units continue 4".
Archers give pass thru fire. A "5" is rolled = 1 kill and a "6" is rolled = 1 kill.
Q: does each archery unit get a roll or is it one roll per grouping?

Peasants move 9". Outside ranks only do a half move of 4.5" and archers stay put.
Archers fire again. Rolling "5" and "4" = 2 kills.
An excessive casualty morale check is performed for the Constables. MH must roll 7 or better per unit on 2d6. A "3" and "10" are rolled, so 1 more MH is removed.







Turn Two:

Constables charge peasant line. Morale check is made to see if line holds. Peasants must roll a 10 or better on 2d6 or retreat.
Q: is this check made for entire formation, each unit, or units in combined collumn/line?

I rolled a check for two facing collumns. A roll of "11" and "11" resulted, so formations held.
A further 2" move and melee entered. MH vs. LF = 2 die/unit and 4-6 kill. Rolled a "5" and "2" = 1 kill and charge was halted.
Peasants moved and turned 90 degrees. Other units advanced. Archers held positions.
Melee: LF vs. MH = 1 die/3 units and 6 kill. Rolled a "6"= 1 kill.



Lord Daniel Edmunds constables were quickly crushed and routed by the agressive, even though untrained, tactics of the rabble. Lord Edmunds may be in for a surprise if he does not take the necessary measures to get his territory back under control.

This scenario did not play out as I had expected. I thought the MH would have created havoc on the untrained peasants. But archers really softened them up with some lucky rolls. The game played a bit slow and clunky as I found myself checking the rules often and questioning my own interpretations of the rules. Any input or suggestions welcome since I'm sure I may have messed up in my execution






.

[cooper]

Very cool!

Turn 1: I can't quite tell from the pictures, but it looks like some of your archers needed to use the "indirect fire" rules (pg. 12) for their 2nd volley as there are intervening groups and the enemy. Also it appears you have your archers firing 4x in a single turn? This is not possible. You have 4 archers, so cross reference the number of archers with how the targets are armored. Assuming the MH is counted as "armored" you get 2 rolls for the turn your first pass through fire and your second indirect fire over the heads of the moving peasants. 1-4 on a d6 means no casualties, 5-6 on a d6 means 1 casualty. (pg. 11). The most casualties in turn #1 is 2.


Turn 2: Charges continue movement during a round of a charge up to their maximum movement rate (pg. 15), there is no possibility of flanking the horses in round 2. How did you determine the "charge was halted?" In this turn you should have 4 horse charging the peasants. Also, once combat is engaged you have to move to rounds and not turns. Turn 2 should have a number of rounds in it.

Turn One:

Constables move 18"+6"= 24" along road holding a tight formation.
Q: are facing and formation penalties read in inches ordo they represent a fraction of a full move?
A: Facing and formations count as 1 or 2 full moves aka 18" to go from column to line which will take their entire turn.

At 18" they changed formation from collumn to line and outside units turned oblique. Outside units lose road bonus, inside units continue 4". They cannot do this and move 18" in one turn, they can move or they can change formation, not both.

Archers give pass thru fire. A "5" is rolled = 1 kill and a "6" is rolled = 1 kill. Too many attacks, only 1 dice is thrown
Q: does each archery unit get a roll or is it one roll per grouping?
A: See my critique above, the answer is all archers count as a single group.

Peasants move 9". Outside ranks only do a half move of 4.5" and archers stay put.
Archers fire again. Rolling "5" and "4" = 2 kills. again, too many attacks.
An excessive casualty morale check is performed for the Constables. MH must roll 7 or better per unit on 2d6. A "3" and "10" are rolled, so 1 more MH is removed. No excessive casualty will happen here as you gave your archers too many attacks.

Turn Two: possibly turn 3...

round 1
Constables charge peasant line. Morale check is made to see if line holds. Peasants must roll a 10 or better on 2d6 or retreat.
Q: is this check made for entire formation, each unit, or units in combined collumn/line?
A: there is no such thing as formation. There are units. You can have 1 man be a single unit, or you may have 6 men be a unit, its up to you to decide.

I rolled a check for two facing collumns. A roll of "11" and "11" resulted, so formations held. both MH and LF should attempt casualties here

Round 2
MH should continue movement and prepare another attack next turn possible, or turn and attempt more melee
A further 2" move and melee entered. MH vs. LF = 2 die/unit and 4-6 kill. Rolled a "5" and "2" = 1 kill and charge was halted. I don't understand how charge was halted
Peasants moved and turned 90 degrees. Other units advanced. Sorry they cannot do this until after the 1st round of meleeArchers held positions. how much did they move? This matters, turns only end with you run out of movement points or men.
Melee: LF vs. MH = 1 die/3 units and 6 kill. Rolled a "6"= 1 kill. Some LF are flanking the MH, this makes the MH HH and the horse should get another attack as well

Either round 3 should begin here or if the horse are not in melee range and out of movement points, then Turn 3 should begin.

[derv]

Thank you cooper!

Point 1: It seems I messed up right out the gate with the formation and facing rules. I read this as penalties in inches to a full move. Since these are related to full or fractions of a full turn, if a unit simply chose to turn oblique (1/4 move) would they be allowed to travel the remainder of a full movement (3/4 move)?

Point 2: related to first point and I think I understand now. No full movements and change of formation in same turn. Though, I am not clear how a unit changes from Line to Square in two moves according to the rules. Does this mean they can do nothing for 2 turns after this change in formation?

Point 3: The archers in the scenario are to the left and right near the woodline. One group is side by side (line). The other is 2 ranks deep (collumn). According to the rules on page 12, archers are allowed to fire two ranks deep if all units are archers and they have a 45 degree arc of fire left or right. Seperately, it seems you are saying all combined units would only get one roll (in this case it would have been 3-4 number firing vs. 1/2 armor so only one kill per incident would be possible). I was giving each seperate grouping with 2 units a seperate roll to hit. This was clearly a bugaboo.

Point 4: It might still have been possible for an excessive casualty check to be needed if there were 2 kills on the MH (2 out of 6 is 33 1/3%). Or are you saying the archers would not have recieved 2 seperate attacks in that turn? (One was a pass-through fire and the other was an attack on the missile fire part of the turn). Am I reading the sequence for a turn correctly?

Point 5: Formations and units. I use the term formation to mean the manner in which the units are grouped together. In the picture above, there is one MH facing 14 LF peasants. Of these 14 units the MH is facing, there is one collumn of 4 units that he is directly in line with. It seems to me that he would be charging this collumn and possibly one to right or left of it. Who should be making a morale check for the charge? At most, I would think it would be the front rank. Or are you suggesting there is one morale check for all 14 units? If they fail, all turn and retreat 1 1/2 moves? This part is a little blurry to me.

Point 6: Continue movement of a charge. Does cavalry travel through the units on a charge? I ruled the charge halted because the peasants were not defeated by the MH attack and they held their position. I assumed melee would resume at this point after peasants were given their move.

Point 7: peasants turning 90 degrees is 1/2 move, which still gives them 4 1/2" forward movement (1/2 move). I never moved the archers along the woods at all (do they have to move?). The other two groups of peasants, I moved forward and turned oblique (1/4 move). But again, I was actually penalizing change of formation in inches. So, I understand that is not right, but I'm not sure I broke any rules here anyway.Unless you cannot split moves that way.

Point 8: I actually thought that when another unit was flanked, the attacking units went up one class. So, if the combat would have contimued, the peasant LF on the flanks would have become HF. This I'll have to review again. Since they were LF vs. MH, it didn't matter because it is the same for HF vs MH ( 1 die per three men 6 kills). Now, MH vs. HF would have been an advantage for the peasants where only a 5-6 is a kill instead of 4-6. Again, I'm assuming that only the front ranks can engage in melee.

Final question, could you clarify what you mean by "movement points".

It seems like I need to replay this scenario because there were some definate mistakes that changed the course of the game. Appreciate the guidance Cooper.

[cooper]

Sorry, what I mean by "movement points" is that unlike d&d, there are no set number of rounds within a turn and movement rates do not "reset" each round. In d&d a fighter can move 6" per round, but in CHAINMAIL a fighter has 6" to move for the whole turn, once he's used that up he can't move any longer, if this means that he and his enemy are not in melee range of each other, then a new turn begins and the amount of movement allowed resets. If they are in melee range of each other than multiple rounds of combat ensue until one side or the other loses (see rules on fatigue pg. 11) or moves out of melee.

[derv]

This is my next attempt at using Chainmail. I am still not using the Post Melee Morale rules, but may include them, as well as fatigue, in my next game. I had wanted to include more pics, but am having difficulty embedding the images

The Ford of Blanchetaque

*this scenario was adapted from a Cry Havoc Scenario

Intro:
1346- after looting Caen, King Edward III is determined to cross the Somme River despite the French’s heavy forces guarding every bridge. He has no choice, his supplies are running low and his army’s morale is declining. At 8:00 am, August 24th, his troops plunged ahead being led by Sir Reginald Cobham and the Earl of Northampton.

Troop Allotments:
English
80 knights= 4 HH= 20 pts.
80 longbows= 4 LF= 20 pts.
80 men-at-arms= 4 HF= 8 pts.

French
60 knights= 3 HH= 15 pts.
120 crossbows= 6 LF= 15 pts.
240 men-at-arms= 12 HF= 24 pts.

*Fording Penalty: 1 move. After crossing, unit must stop on other side. No charge possible.
Hills: 50% move uphill. No charge possible.

English get initiative. Starred units are led by Godemar du Fray, Sir Reginald Cobham, Earl of Northampton. +1 to all die rolls for these units.





Turn One:
English HH cross the Somme River and HF advance to its edge.
French crossbow perform pass through fire (6LF vs. HH= 5-6). Rolled 1= miss.
French HH charge down hill against English HH (Reginald). Morale check =5 (rolled 7= success).
French crossbows open ranks and allow HF to advance ½ move.
English longbows perform pass through fire on HF (4 LF vs. HF= 4-6). Rolled 5= 1 kill.
Casualty morale check made for remaining units= 7+. Rolled 3= failed. Remaining 2 units removed.
Melee:
HH vs. HH (1 die/man, 6). Reginalds units get +1. French roll 4,2= miss; English roll 2,2= miss; Fr 5,4= miss; Eng 6,2= 1 kill. Casualty morale check made for French= 6+ (rolled 7). Fr 1= miss; Eng 2,1= miss; Fr 4= miss; Eng 6,4= 1 kill. Charge was crushed by the English.



Turn Two:
The Earls units charge, advancing 6”.
Q: can units advancing on level terrain that would have to perform the remaining movement uphill after melee, still charge? Or do they incur a movement penalty? Or are they simply unable to charge?

Charge morale check made. HH vs. HF= 9+. HF rolled “8” +1 (within 12” of du Fray)= 9.
Crossbows perform pass through fire (6 LF vs. HH/ 5-6). Rolled “6”= 1 kill. Casualty morale check made for English HH (+1 for Earl)= 6+. Rolled a 3= failed and Earls unit removed.
Reginalds HH advance on hill. English HF ford the Somme.
French troops advance and crossbows change facing 45 degrees.
Du Fray charges HF (moving 9”). Charge morale check for HH vs. HF= 9+. HF rolled 9.
English longbows perform pass through fire on HF (4 LF vs. HF/ 4-6) rolled 5= 1kill. Casualty morale check for HF= 7+ (+1 for du Fray within 12”). Rolled 11= success.
English longbows fire on French crossbows (4 LF vs. LF/ 1 or 2 kills possible). Rolled 4= 2 kills.
Melee:
Reginald within 3” of crossbows closes distance. 2 HH vs. 2 LF (4 die/man, 5,6) +1. Rolled 5,2,5,2= 2 kills.

2 English HF vs. 2 French HF (1 die/man, 6). English roll 6,3= 1kill. French roll 5,2. Casualty morale check= 7+. Rolled 7. Combat continues. English roll 6,3= 1 kill. French roll 4,2.

Du Fray HH vs. HF (3 die/man, 5,6) +1. HF vs. HH (1 die/4 men, 6) Du Fray rolls 6,5,3= 2 kills. He continues the remainder of his charge into the Somme.




Turn three:
English HF charge French HF. These units were in melee so crossbows cannot fire on them.
Reginalds units turn 90 degrees (½ move) and engage French crossbows.
English longbows turn 90 degrees (½ move).
French HF turn 90 degrees and crossbows turn 45 degrees (¼ move).
Longbows are not in proper formation to fire on du Frays unit.
French crossbows are not of sufficient strength to fire on Reginalds units.
Melee:
English HF vs. French HF (1 die/man, 6). English roll 6,6= 2 kills; French roll 1,3.

Reginalds HH engage crossbows. 2 HH vs. 2 LF (4 die/man, 5,6) +1. LF (1 die/4 men, 6). English roll 5,2,2,1,5,5,2,3= 3 kills.


Turn Four:
English HF advance on crossbows.
Longbows form into line (1 move).
Reginald turns troops around to face HF (1 move).
Du Fray turns 90 degrees (½ move) and advances 4”.
French HF close distance with Reginald to avoid a charge.
English longbows attempt to fire on du Frays unit, but must make opposing roll first. Du Fray rolls 5, longbows roll 2= failure.
French crossbows are too weak to fire on English HF.
Melee:
English HF vs. crossbows (1 die/man, 5,6). LF vs. HF (1 die/2 men, 6). English roll 1,1; French roll 3. English roll 6,2= 1 kill; Frech roll 2. Casualty morale check 8+. Rolled 8= success. Battle continues. English roll 6,4= 1 kill; French roll 2.

Du Fray HH vs. LF longbows (4 die/man, 5,6) +1. LF (1 die/ 4 men, 6). French roll 5,5,4,4= 4 kills. Longbows roll 1 and archers are totally destroyed.




Turn Five:
Reginald joind with HF and turns 90 degrees (½ move). HF about face ( 1 move).
Du Fray turns 90 degrees and fords the Somme.

Turn Six:
Reginald charges du Fray (9” move). HF follow his lead by advancing down the hill.
Charge morale check made 5+. Du Fray rolls 7= success.

Melee:
HH vs. HH ( 1 die/man, 6). Combat lasted for 5 rounds before a hit was made. French rolled a 6 = 1 kill. Excessive casualty check made for Reginald 6+. English rolled 9= success. Melee continued. English rolled 1; French rolled 5; English rolled 6= 1 kill.

King Edward could now advance his entire army across the Somme and northward towards Crecy.

Note: This scenario ended with only three figures remaining on the board- 2 HF and 1 HH and there was the possibility that Godemar du Fray could have turned the tide the other way at the end.

.

[cooper]

A note on wording. It's not "misses" and archers aren't "too weak to fire" rather it's "no casualties" 80 men don't "miss" they're just aren't any casualties.

Also, you forgot to incorporate fatigue rules. With the heavy horse charging all around they should have been fighting fatigued after the first sortee. This gives a benefit to someone who has troops in reserve attack a force that's already fatigued.

[Deleted]

Nov 2, 2013 17:02:18 GMT -6 cooper said:

Also, you forgot to incorporate fatigue rules.

He didn't forget, he didn't include them and said so in the second sentence of his post. He's learning the game and is adding on rules as he familiarizes himself with new concepts.

[cooper]

Chill dude, I missed the sentence.

[Deleted]

Nov 2, 2013 17:51:43 GMT -6 cooper said:

Chill dude, I missed the sentence.

I wasn't upset. I know you missed the sentence, that's why I pointed it out.

Take your own advice.

[derv]

Nov 2, 2013 17:02:18 GMT -6 cooper said:

A note on wording. It's not "misses" and archers aren't "too weak to fire" rather it's "no casualties" 80 men don't "miss" they're just aren't any casualties.

Also, you forgot to incorporate fatigue rules. With the heavy horse charging all around they should have been fighting fatigued after the first sortee. This gives a benefit to someone who has troops in reserve attack a force that's already fatigued.

I'll keep the "misses" wording in mind. I tried to keep the details brief, but still include the relevant info of the die rolls. So instead of "miss", I'll just record it as "NC" next time. The "too weak to fire" reference is some what a mixed discriptor between the abstract realities of what the game is emulating and the mechanical realities of the Missile Fire Table. From a mechanics stand point, 2 LF crossbow figures are "too weak to fire" on 2 HF figures because they are incapable of scoring a hit.

As for the Fatigue rules, I plan on using them next time. I'm hoping that my play reports will encourage others to give Chainmail a try and possibly learn from my successes and mistakes. I'm only biting off as much as I can chew. I'm still not sure I can chew on the Post Melee Morale checks. They seem a little convoluted and it should be possible to simplify them. Interestingly, it is the one place in Chainmail that actually gives a decent example of applying the rules. I'm really trying to avoid modifying the rules right now. I want to play them as written. But, I can see the Post Melee Morale checks really bogging the game down.

As a seperate note, historically in the Battle of Blanchetaque, the crossbows of the French proved ineffective in contrast to the English longbows who rained down destruction on the French lines. Their support was clearly essential to the English winning the beachhead on the other side of the Somme.

[derv]

Scenario setup for next time-

Dark Days and Red Stags

As the courier stood at attention after handing King Kole Chesterton the message of the peasant revolt in Darley Dale and Lord Daniel Edmund's request for military support, the King sighed and said, "I guess the season of peace has passed and darkness has descended. Send word to Lord Edmundson of the news that has recently transpired here and is certain to be coming his way. It will surely chill the hot tempers of the peasants and bring them back to their senses. Most assuredly, it must, because we will need every able bodied man to keep hold of what is our."

When times were good, King Kole Chesterton would put on a hunt with his nobles once a year. The King was fond of his red stags and the chase they led. Following the hunt, he would hold a grand banquet to celebrate another successful year of peace and prosperity amidst the realm. For this reason, he jealously protected the herd of red stag despite the plight of many in the lower caste who went hungry. Poachers of the king's red stag were punished with impartiality. The last to broach the King's trust was an old hermit that lived in the Denmoore Hills. Before the axemans tool fell on the neck of the hermit, he let out a short unnerving cant of curses on the King and his realm. One year to the day, red stag started disappearing from the herd. Occasionally, part of a carcus was found laying on the open hill sides, grizzled and gnawled bones scattered about. Persistent murmurs among the citizens of the hermits curse circulated freely. This lasted for several weeks and the Warden could make no headway as to the cause for the depletion of the red stag, until a lone farmer stymied in shock by what he witnesses reported seeing an abomination of three Ogres camping in the Denmoore Hills. A company of knights were sent out to dispatch the evil intrusion on the King's land. To the knights misfortune, they were vastly out numbered and over powered. As their bones were splintered and blood splattered on the autumn landscape, one escaped to tell the tale. He reported a mysterious purple glow from the cave the old hermit called home, as the malignant spawn of evil exited the abode from another plane. Unknown to all, a dark army has been amassing in the hills........

[derv]

After discovering the fate of the knights in the Denmoore hills, the King sent word through out the realm to seek refuge in the Castle of Oeria. Scouts were dispatched to keep a distant watch on the evil intuders. One of the three ogres was seen marching with a small army of orcs toward Darley Dale. The other two ogres remained within the Denmoore Hills while orcs buisily cut down trees for the construction of war machines. Clearly they were preparing for a seige against the Castle of Oeria.

note: the seige rules of Chainmail require the use of the Man-to-Man rules. So, I will be stepping away from the mass combat rules for this scenario, but I am still maintaining the abstraction that each figure actually represents 10 or 20 men due to scale.

Point Costs:
The Evil Forces of the Curse
2 ogres= 24 pts.
6HF orc with short bows= 30 pts.
2 trebuchet (hvy catapult)= 40 pts.
12 HF orc= 24 pts.
3 mantlets & 1 ram= ?? 25 pts.

Total: 143 pts.

Castle of Oeria
King Kole Chesterton (hero)= 4 AF= 10 pts.
5 HF crossbows= 17.5 pts.
3 light catapults= 45 pts.
8 HF men at arms= 16 pts.
2 AF= 5 pts.
4 HH= 20 pts.

Total: 118.5 pts.

Initiative is given to the Evil Forces of the Curse. King Kole Chesterton's remaining knights meet them in the open field.

*I was going to use the Post Melee Morale rules with this scenario, but they proved to not be needed. Also, it is questionable whether this should even be used for a seige, since it does not apply to the castle occupants (p. 26). I did incorporate the Fatigue rules and they were little trouble to use. It was just a matter of tracking all units actions accurately.


Turn One:
Ogres move 9", HF orcs move 9", orc mantlets move 6", ladders move 4.5", and ram moves 2".
HH moves 12".

Artillery Fire:
Trebs fire on corner towers ballistas.
1. 38", 2" right (rolled 6,2)= 6" undershot/NC
2. 38", 2" right (rolled 3,3)= direct hit for 3 pts. damage/ ballista destroyed.
*figures manning the ballista would normally be destroyed within 2" hit area, but a light catapult has 3 pts. of defense. I instead performed a morale check for remaining figures. Check was at 7+ (rolled 9).
-these cannot fire again until turn 6.

Light catapult fires flaming oil keg.
1. 22", 8" left (rolled 6,3)= 6" undershot/NC
Remaining ballista fires
2. 18", 3" right (rolled 1,5)= 5" overshot/NC
-these cannot fire again until turn 4.

Missile Fire:
Short bow vs HH can only fire at close range on roll of 12.
Targets out of range for H. crossbows.

Turn Two:
Ogres and HF charge for 4.5" out of 12"
Mantlets move 6". Other mantlets turn 45 degrees (1/4 move) to avoid burning oil. Ladders move 4.5" and ram 2".
HH charge 4.5" out of 18".

(2) short bows perform pass through fire rolling 6 & 9= NC.

Charge morale checks (+1 foot/ +2 horse because both charging)
HF vs HH 5 (rolled 7)= success
HH vs HF 9 (rolled 8+1)= success
HH vs Ogre 8 (rolled 10 & 10)= success/ no check was needed according to pg.26
Ogre vs HH 5 (rolled 8 & 5)= success

Melee:
Knights get first blow because their weapons are better then two classes higher. They recieve +2 to die roll for first round and +1 for following rounds.
1. Knights vs. ogres (lance vs chain)=6. Rolled 11 & 6= 2 hits.
2. Knights vs. HF=6. Rolled 9 & 6= 2 kills.
*knights complete their charge movement.
3. Ogres vs. knights=8. Ogres get -1 to roll, but 6 attacks x3 because their weapon is eight classes lower then knights.
Rolled 3,7,6,6,9= 1 kill. 2nd ogre rolls 9= 1 kill.
*ogre complete their charge movement.

Excess Casualty check for HH= 6+ (rolled 10).
*Knights and ogres fatigued.

Turn Three:
Mantlets move 6", HF ladders dropped & make 1/2 move turn, HF pile out of ram to face HH.

(5) H. crossbows fire on ogres at 15" (medium range)= 9+ rolled 5,11,6,5,6= 1 hit
*cannot fire again until turn 5

Melee:
Knights vs HF. Since knights are fatigued, they attack and defend as MH.
HF ladders within 3" and elect to be drawn into combat.
1. Knights get +2 first round, then +1. HF carry spears and suffer -1 to roll for foot.
Knights vs chain & shield (fatigue)= 7+, roll 9 & 5= 1 kill.
HF vs Chain & shield (fatigue)= 10, roll 7,6,10(9),8= NC
2. Knights (horse gets an attack this round also= mace). Roll 7 & 10= 2 kills
Horse vs chain= 8+, roll 6 & 11= 1 kill.
HF rolls 2 & 9= NC

Excess casualty check for HF 7+ (rolled 5)= reamining units removed from play.

Turn Four:
*oil burns out
Ogres turn about (1 move), mantlets move forward 6".

Artillery fire performed:
1. Lt. catapult 15", 6" right (rolled 3 & 1)= 3" undershot/ NC
2. Ballista 15", 0" (rolled 3,3)= 3 pts. damage to ogre
*cannot fire again until turn 7

Turn Five:
Ogres advance 9", both mantlets turn 45 degrees (1/4 move) and move 3".
HH (rested) turn about (1 move).

Turn Six:
Castle's gate opens and King with troops advance out

Archers perform pass through fire on HF.
(2) short bows vs chain & shield at 5"= 9+, (4) at 9"= 10+
1. roll 12 & 10= 2 kills
2. roll 6,9,9,5= NC

Ogres charge, Knights charge.
Charge morale check= 5+ (rolled 12 & 5)

Missile Fire at this range is ineffective against AF.

Melee:
Knight's vs. Ogres (HF) +2= 6+ (rolled 9,9= 2 hits
Ogres vs plate/shield= 8+
1. rolled 12= 1 kill
2. rolled 6,4,4,5,3,5,5,6,9= 1 kill
-complete charge movement.
*Ogres fatigued

Turn Seven:
King and AF advance 6"
Archers perform pass through fire.
(6) short bows vs AF at 5"= 12, rolled 4,11,10,7,11,2= NC

Artillery Fire:
Trebs fire on King's position.
1. 28", 6" right (rolled 4 & 5)= 5" overshot/ NC
2. 28", 6" left (rolled 6 & 6)= King suffers 3 pts damage and is gravely injured.
*cannot be fired again until turn 12

Missile Fire:
(6) archers fire rolling 3,8,3,5,12,4= 1 kill
Excessive Casualty check for AF=6+ (rolled 9)

Melee:
King and AF within 3" of HF archers and close distance (sword & shield vs chain & handaxe)= 8
1. King gets 4 attacks (rolls 12,2,6,6,7)= 1 kill
Archers vs plate & shield= 12. Roll 9,4,4= NC
2. AF roll 8,9,10= 3 kills
Archers perform excessive casualty check 7+ (roll 9= success).
*King fatigued

Turn Eight:
Ogres about face (1 move)
Some troops (4 HF) file down into castle court yard (light catapult abandoned).
Short bows fire at crossbows on wall at 8.5" (medium range)= 9+ Roll 7 & 6= NC.

Turn Nine:
Ogres advance 9".
HF troops file out of castle into line formation.
Short bows perform pass through fire at close range= 9+ Rolling 8 & 4= NC

Artillery Fire:
Ballista fires on ogre position 24", 4" right (rolled 3 & 6)= overshot 6"= NC
*cannot fire again until turn 12

Missile Fire:
short bows roll 8 & 10= 1 kill

Turn Ten:
Ogres advance 9"
Crossbows perform pass through fire at 17"= 9+ Rolling 7,6,11,5,7= 1 hit. *Ogre is slain sustaining 6 hits.
note: I could have required a morale check here, but wanted to forgo it.

King and AF turn 45 degrees (1/4 move) and advance on ogre closing the remaining 4.5" distance.
HF troops turn 45 degrees (1/4 move) and close distance on orc archers.
Archers perform pass through fire at close range= 9+ rolling 6 & 11= 1 kill
Excessive Casualty Morale check for HF= 6+ (rolled 10)

Missile Fire:
archers roll 3 &7= NC

Melee:
1. HF vs HF (sword vs handaxe)
Castle units 8+ (roll 5,8)= 1 kill
Orcs 10+ (roll 8)= NC
Castle units roll 8 & 7= 1 kill

2. King vs. Ogre on FCT
King (hero) needs 9+, Ogre needs 8+
King rolls a 9 slaying the ogre.
Remaining HF orc units manning Trebs perform Morale check 7+ (rolled 5). Retreat off the board.


The King, who is seriously wounded, is aided in returning back to the castle to recoup. He imediately orders the organization of an expeditionary force to go to the aid of Lord Daniel Edmunds in Darley Dale. Time is of the essence.


.

[derv]

I'd be glad to hear any input from others on any of these scenarios. I realize the content can be a little dry if you're not interested in the mechanics, but I thought it was worth while starting a thread like this because there are very few examples of Chainmail play that actually break down the application of the rules.

There's two things that I'll bring up as points of discussion on the last scenario.

First, I've read some discussion that questions the area of effect for a catapult when using it with mass combat. The rules include it with information under siege's- which use the man-to-man combat tables. It should be noted that the siege section starts out with the statement, "At best, siege's are difficult to handle". The reason I am not troubled with the 2" or 3.5" hit area with mass combat is because I assume the scale carries over to these weapons as well. So, it is not a single catapult, manned by 10-80 men hitting an area 3.5" and possibly killing 10-300 men. Instead, it is 10-20 catapults represented by a single figure accomplishing the same feat. If using 1:1 scale for every thing, then it is a single catapult manned by 1-4 figures possibly killing up to 12-16 figures in tight formation with 1" bases.

Second, I found combat between the HH and the Ogre armed with a mace troubling with the man-to-man rules. If I understood it properly, the HH had the first blow because of being mounted and having a higher classed weapon. But, the ogre recieved 18 attacks because he was worth 6 HF and he was using a weapon 8 or more classes lower then HH lance which means x3 (pg. 26 under Melee Table:note). What do you think?

[cooper]

Great write up again. One point on the king receiving 3 hits and being "severely wounded". In D&D of course a cumulation of hits can bring down a hero, but in CHAINMAIL heroes can only be brought down by 4 simultaneous hits, "otherwise there is no effect on them" (pg. 30). (ogres are specifically mentioned as being brought down with cumulative hits). This explains partly, why an ogre needs 6 (or 18) attacks in a round as I will discuss at the bottom of the page.

Nov 10, 2013 9:58:41 GMT -6 derv said:

So, it is not a single catapult, manned by 10-80 men hitting an area 3.5" and possibly killing 10-300 men. Instead, it is 10-20 catapults represented by a single figure accomplishing the same feat. If using 1:1 scale for every thing, then it is a single catapult manned by 1-4 figures possibly killing up to 12-16 figures in tight formation with 1" bases.

The reason this doesn't work is that it flies in the face of historical use of siege machinery. Catapults weren't large battery cannons for use against infantry, they were designed to throw a boulder about 1 foot across in order to knock down walls. I had the same issue at first as you are having, at no time ever did anyone use rows and rows of catapults to rain mass destruction down on men. It's just not done. catapults are 1:1 scale. Think of the stories of catapults firing diseased cows over castle walls, they weren't raining down 100 cows at a time, they shoot 1 or 2 cows over the wall. Evidenced also by giants and wizards, which act as mobile catapults are 1:1 scale creatures and not used in mass combat. Look at giants in 0d&d, they throw a single boulder against a single target.

Furthermore, you are mixing scales with the king (4 men) with your catapults (1:20 men?). I would think this is cause for a headache.

Second, I found combat between the HH and the Ogre armed with a mace troubling with the man-to-man rules. If I understood it properly, the HH had the first blow because of being mounted and having a higher classed weapon. But, the ogre recieved 18 attacks because he was worth 6 HF and he was using a weapon 8 or more classes lower then HH lance which means x3 (pg. 26 under Melee Table:note). What do you think?

the ogre is limited to combat with 1 man per round, under the man-to-man rules it says that a horse can attack a different opponent from the rider, but it doesn't say it can attack multiple opponents from the rider just because the horse gets 2 attacks. An ogre with a mace gets 18 attacks against a single man with a lance, which will be overkill, but no single man is going to survive against an ogre anyway, but at least that man will get a chance to cause a cumulative hit on the ogre. An ogre can kill at most 1 man per round. One could make a case for True Trolls to attack multiple men per round, because that's the rule carried into Ad&d, but ogres did not have that power. Also, the ogre couldn't use some of his "18" attacks against the knights horse, because the horse is also attacking with a "mace", so the ogre can attack the horse 6x or he can attack the rider 18x.


Am I correct, you have 4 mounted knights attacking 2 ogres? So 4 men vs. 12 (did you have the horses attack as they should in man-to-man on subsequent rounds? which would make it 12 men vs. 12 men). It looks like you were trying to make man-to-man play out like mass combat, but you have to go a lot slower and play out each round like a game of D&D. except with a 2d6 attack matrix instead of the alternate d20. However, adopting the alternate d20 system requires one to abandon the idea of "simultaneous hits" as an ogre wouldn't be able to slay a hero any longer (as he'd lose his 6 attacks, 4 of which need to land in any one round in order to slay the hero).

The case of the ogre highlights the wisdom of Gygax's decision to adopt the ad&d attack matrix, giving the ogre a thac0 of 17 obviates the need for him to attack 6 times in a round equal to 6 normal men (aka 6 attacks at thac0 20).



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[derv]

Nov 10, 2013 13:02:16 GMT -6 cooper said:

One point on the king receiving 3 hits and being "severely wounded". In D&D of course a cumulation of hits can bring down a hero, but in CHAINMAIL heroes can only be brought down by 4 simultaneous hits, "otherwise there is no effect on them" (pg. 30). (ogres are specifically mentioned as being brought down with cumulative hits). This explains partly, why an ogre needs 6 (or 18) attacks in a round as I will discuss at the bottom of the page.

Good point cooper. I do recall reading that a Hero can only be killed in normal combat by 4 simultaneous hits. It kind of goes against the grain with me and is probably why I forgot it, but it is by the book. It's worth noting that the King was struck by a Trebuchet, though

The reason this doesn't work is that it flies in the face of historical use of siege machinery. Catapults weren't large battery cannons for use against infantry, they were designed to throw a boulder about 1 foot across in order to knock down walls. I had the same issue at first as you are having, at no time ever did anyone use rows and rows of catapults to rain mass destruction down on men. It's just not done. catapults are 1:1 scale. Think of the stories of catapults firing diseased cows over castle walls, they weren't raining down 100 cows at a time, they shoot 1 or 2 cows over the wall. Evidenced also by giants and wizards, which act as mobile catapults are 1:1 scale creatures and not used in mass combat. Look at giants in 0d&d, they throw a single boulder against a single target.

I have no doubt that what you say is true. However, there must have also been the stray boulder that rolled through infantry lines or fractured on impact, sending shards of rock fragments in every direction. I agree there main purpose would be to employ them in the destruction of castle walls. Then again, as you implied, they were also used to toss diseased cows, hot tar, and burning "greek fire". These would specifically be targeting the general population in the castle or the infantry in the fields and their siege engines.

Furthermore, you are mixing scales with the king (4 men) with your catapults (1:20 men?). I would think this is cause for a headache.

No, I was simply expressing that a fully manned catapult required a 4 man crew (whatever the scale) to be able to fire normaly without penalty.

Am I correct, you have 4 mounted knights attacking 2 ogres?.....................It looks like you were trying to make man-to-man play out like mass combat, but you have to go a lot slower and play out each round like a game of D&D. except with a 2d6 attack matrix instead of the alternate d20.

There were two seperate combats that involved the HH and the Ogres. Once in turn 2 and then again in turn 6. In turn 2 the melee involved 1 ogre vs 1 HH, 1 ogre vs 1 HH, and 2 HF vs 2 HH. The knights attacked first during charge and there was only one round of combat that resulted in 2 HF killed by the 2 HH and 2 HH killed by the 2 ogres. The horses did not get a seperate attack as they would have in round 2.

In turn 6, we see much the same results. Both ogres and both knights charge. This melee involved 2 HH and 2 ogres. Again, the knights recieved the first attack due to the class of their weapons and, again, the ogres killed them in the first round with their counter blows.

All combats in this scenario used the Man-to-Man Combat Tables and were resolved in that way.

I don't really see the Ogre's as a glitch in the rules (they might be tho). It was just surprising to see the advantage they recieved in that first round of combat with HH. This in contrast to the King (hero= 4 AF) tusseling with the HF orcs was a bit of an oddity.

[cooper]

Sure a stray boulder can roll through infantry lines, but catapult boulders were the size of bowling balls, not giant rocks portrayed in video games and some movies. Even a stone 1 cubic feet weights as much as a man, a 10' boulder would weigh some 25,000lbs which no giant is going to toss 200'. The wizards fireball effects a single target in CHAINMAIL, a dragon, hero, or giant. It does not wipe fields like a B2 bomber carpet bombing cambodian villagers.

Given the damage area of 3 1/2 (on the man to man scale) is enough to wound a handful of men, a realistic amount given a boulder of that size. The lightning bolt/cannon shot with it's bounce and horizontal trajectory will be able to hurt more men of course, but still realistically no more than a dozen. Most importantly, the "cost" is 1:1 scale. If you want your point costs to be in line, to have catapults represented on the 1:20 scale you need to multiply the point cost by 20x. Just as you would when purchasing a wizard or giant. 3 catapults is 45 points, 60 catapults (3 at 1:20 scale) is 900 points!

The charging knights had quite the advantage over the ogres, in the sense that they got 1st strike, which they wouldn't normally have gotten. As it is 2 HH vs. 2 ogres is really 2 men vs. the power of 12 men, so it's no surprise they were crushed hard.

[derv]

Nov 10, 2013 15:19:48 GMT -6 derv said:

Nov 10, 2013 13:02:16 GMT -6 cooper said:

Furthermore, you are mixing scales with the king (4 men) with your catapults (1:20 men?). I would think this is cause for a headache.

No, I was simply expressing that a fully manned catapult required a 4 man crew (whatever the scale) to be able to fire normaly without penalty.

I think I was misreading your point here cooper. Yes, in a way I was mixing scales. But only in an abstract way that limits the amount of figures required on the board. Regardless, all combat was resolved as if man-to-man.

Seperately, if the scenario was mass combat, instead of a siege, and you had a hero on the board, would he not be worth 4 figures at whatever scale was being used (1:10 or 1:20)? I'm not sure I see the difference. Instead, on the man-to-man tables he has 4 attacks/round.

[derv]

Nov 10, 2013 15:40:26 GMT -6 cooper said:

Given the damage area of 3 1/2 (on the man to man scale) is enough to wound a handful of men, a realistic amount given a boulder of that size. The lightning bolt/cannon shot with it's bounce and horizontal trajectory will be able to hurt more men of course, but still realistically no more than a dozen. Most importantly, the "cost" is 1:1 scale. If you want your point costs to be in line, to have catapults represented on the 1:20 scale you need to multiply the point cost by 20x. Just as you would when purchasing a wizard or giant. 3 catapults is 45 points, 60 catapults (3 at 1:20 scale) is 900 points!

I'm not sure I see this the same way. I calculate costs by the points in the rules. I do not multiply costs based on scale. Otherwise you are multiplying all costs of figures regardless of type. A Giant is worth 50 points and is equivalent to 12 HF(men) regardless of scale used. He is capable of hurling rocks like a catapult, but he is more valuable then a catapult because of his movement rate and combat abilities (he can also fight on the FCT). How do you use Giants in your mass combat scenarios? Or wizards for that matter? Are you suggesting that these types of figures can only be used 1:1? This does not seem consistent with the descriptions given in the Fantasy Supplement. The point costs given for catapults is on the same page as the costs for the various troop types (pg.27) and I do not see any mention about multiplying costs by scale. To me scale is somewhat irrelevant. It's an abstraction that has very little effect on the mechanics. It's just a means to express greater numbers with fewer figures and expedite combat. Either way, a figure is still 1 figure regardless of scale. In the siege scenario I put together, to truly be 1:1 scale, I would need hundreds of figures. I think a simpler solution would be to shrink the catapults Hit Area if it seems that contrary. To me, it doesn't seem like a problem though.

[cooper]

My contention is of course wizards can only be used in 1:1 scale (unless you are able to spend 1000 points.) This modification of scale is how D&D developed the dungeon scale (1" = 10 feet) to the wilderness scale (1" = 10 yards), without which D&D itself would have been possible. D&D can be viewed as the "2nd edition man-to-man/fantasy combat rules" plus exploration supplement to CHAINMAIL.

5 points gets you 20 men on heavy horse.
45 points gets you one single hero, not 20 heroes.

Yes, it's that big of a deal. For 45 points you get strider, not 20 striders.

That single hero can add +1 to the dice of 100 men, or rally troops who fail a morale check, or slay a dragon.

Your siege should have represented one small section of wall during a larger mass combat siege. This is what the man-to-man section is meant to represent. You don't point buy in 1:1 scale for normal men. You can see this in arneson's FFC where 100gp buys you x amount of goblin soldiers or x heroes.

This is why men in od&d come in 30-300 and giants are 1-8. Why orcs are listed as have 1 catapult per 50 men.

[Deleted]

I've nothing to add to the conversation but wanted to express my appreciation to both Derv and Cooper.

Derv, for being willing to take on a new set of rules and share his learning voyage with the rest of us. With pictures!

And to Cooper, for sharing his encyclopedic knowledge of Chainmail with Derv and the rest of us.

Keep it up! I'm enjoying the discussion and learning, too.

[derv]

Ah, I see we are talking about different things. I'm talking about mass combat vs. man-to-man combat and you are talking about the scale of troop types vs the scale of fantastic figures.

The point you're missing that I'm trying to communicate is that one fantastic figure such as a giant or a hero can be used in either mass combat, where all the other troops are 1:20, or they can be used in Man-to-Man, where all figures equal one man (1:1), either "normal" or "fantastic". In the case of the Giant, in mass combat he is equal to 12 HF for attacks and 12 AF defense; In Man-to-Man he gets 12 strikes each round (I believe he may actually get 13?). In contrast, a "normal" figure in chain & shield armed with a spear, will be 1 HF (1:20) in mass combat or he would get one attack in Man-to-Man (1:1). The point cost for either of these figures would be the same regardless of the combat system used. Why wouldn't you point buy "normal" troops in 1:1? How else would you do it? The point values are actually given in the Man-to-Man Combat chapter. I relate the point costs to a figure instead of scale.

In my siege scenario all troops were treated as if 1:1 for combat under the Man-to-Man tables. But for the sake of simplicity in limiting the number of figures required, the units were 1:20 with the exception of the "fantastic" figures of the King (hero) and the Ogres. These were 1:1. This would be no different then using the mass combat system to resolve melee, except all troops would then be treated as 1:20 and the "fantastic" figures would be used according to the number of troops they are worth instead of recieving multiple strikes in a round. This is why I said the scale was not relevant.

Bringing this back around to the catapult, the Giant (1:1) is still able to throw rocks with the equivalency of a light catapult in a mass combat scenario at 1:20 (not Man-to-Man) and he has no minimum range. He could do the same if all figures were 1:1 scale.

Last point, Chainmail seems to specifically state in the rules that catapults can be used against individual targets such as heros, ogres, and other "fantastic" figures (pg. 38).

Hopefully, my examples were a little clearer. You'll also have to excuse my slow typing

[derv]

Nov 10, 2013 22:00:26 GMT -6 @dubeers said:

I've nothing to add to the conversation but wanted to express my appreciation to both Derv and Cooper.

Derv, for being willing to take on a new set of rules and share his learning voyage with the rest of us. With pictures!

And to Cooper, for sharing his encyclopedic knowledge of Chainmail with Derv and the rest of us.

Keep it up! I'm enjoying the discussion and learning, too.

Thanks for the encouragement Cameron. I thought people might be getting tired of looking at my dirty carpet

[derv]

Nov 10, 2013 21:11:48 GMT -6 cooper said:

You don't point buy in 1:1 scale for normal men. You can see this in arneson's FFC where 100gp buys you x amount of goblin soldiers or x heroes.

This is why men in od&d come in 30-300 and giants are 1-8. Why orcs are listed as have 1 catapult per 50 men.

I've been looking at the rules and the question that comes up when looking at the Fantasy Supplement is, are the point values given at 1:1, 1:20, or both? Just looking at the Heroes on page 30, it seems the point cost for 1:1 Hero is 20 points. Now, if you look at the Orc above, the cost is just 2 points. This is the same cost as a HF on page 27. Is this 1:1 or 1:20? If it's 1:20, then I can buy 10 HF orc units that are equivalent to 200 orcs for the same price as 1 Hero. If it's 1:1, then I can only buy 10 orcs and would need another 20 points to buy 1 HF unit at 1:20.

In the first example 200 orcs for 20 points would be a value when using man-to-man. In the second example, the Hero is the value for mass combat, since he would be worth 4 units on the combat table. So, how do you figure point costs for 1:1 orcs then?

[cooper]

Orcs are normal foes and as such their point cost is 2 points per 20 men. A hero is an individual and the point cost is 20 per man.

The point you're missing that I'm trying to communicate is that one fantastic figure such as a giant or a hero can be used in either mass combat, where all the other troops are 1:20, or they can be used in Man-to-Man, where all figures equal one man (1:1)

No they cannot. A hero used in 1:20 mass combat will be subsumed in the unit and simply add +1 to all rolls by the unit (pg. 30). Or they can fight man-to-man on the normal combat table or on the fantasy combat table. Individual heroes may act independent of their unit to combat a fantastic foe on an individual scale. Under almost no circumstances can anyone afford a unit of heroes 1:20 scale (400 points).

Why wouldn't you point buy "normal" troops in 1:1? How else would you do it?

You point buy the entire army at mass combat scale and then determine what % of forces will engage in individual combat at a particular point on the field or wall, a microcosm of the battle raging around. You don't point buy normal troops at 1:1 because 20 horse cost 5 points and a single hero costs 20 points. If you point buy single horse at 5 points, then all of a sudden the value of the hero is out of whack.

Look at magic weapons. A single magic sword is worth 10 points. You cannot buy 20 magic swords for 10 points. Let's take an example. You can buy a unit of elves (20 men) for 4 points and then buy a single magic sword for 10 points, this gives you a single elven hero for a total cost of 14 points who may act independent of his unit to combat a fantastic foe. He is slightly weaker than a hero, but then again you just saved yourself 6 points to spend elsewhere. That elf does not register as anyone special in mass combat, only when you zoom in to individual combat (vs. a goblin, or orc, ogre, or anti-hero).

That elf with the magic sword would:
roll 3d6 on the man-to-man table against a normal men in 1:1 combat
5d6 vs. a goblin
4d6 vs an orc
fight on the FCT vs. fantastic foes.

The magic swords and magic armor, in fact, only work on the 1:1 scale. There is no means of adjudicating magic armor/weapons in mass combat. Only man-to-man and FCT.

wizard spells also clearly point to individual wizards and not whole battalions of wizards (20 wizard can do more than create a phantasmal force of 20 men surely...). More likely 1 single wizard can create a phantasmal force of 20 men.

[derv]

Nov 11, 2013 4:28:35 GMT -6 cooper said:

The point you're missing that I'm trying to communicate is that one fantastic figure such as a giant or a hero can be used in either mass combat, where all the other troops are 1:20, or they can be used in Man-to-Man, where all figures equal one man (1:1)

No they cannot. A hero used in 1:20 mass combat will be subsumed in the unit and simply add +1 to all rolls by the unit (pg. 30). Or they can fight man-to-man on the normal combat table or on the fantasy combat table. Individual heroes may act independent of their unit to combat a fantastic foe on an individual scale. Under almost no circumstances can anyone afford a unit of heroes 1:20 scale (400 points).

Since you have more experience with Chainmail, I would normally defer to your wisdom. But, in this case at least in part, I have to respectfully disagree.

Yes, you can use a hero as you describe in 1:20 mass combat. It is how I handled it in my Battle of Blanchetaque. I would say, it is the preferable method when doing historical simulations. But, it is not the only way of using heroes in 1:20 mass combat as presented in the rules.

As I said, the individual fantastic figure of the Hero can be used by itself where all other troops are 1:20. In this situation the Hero is worth 4 of a troop type (depending on arms and armor). Lets say our Hero is HF. In this instance, he has the fighting capability of 4 HF units, which would be 80 men. If he faces 2 units of enemy HF, he would get 4 die, 6 kills on the Appendix A Combat Table. The 2 units of HF at 1:20 that he's facing would get 2 die, 6 hits. In this case, they would not be able to kill the Hero unless they could make 4 similtaneous hits by round 2. If he was facing 4 HF units or 2 LH units though, they could possibly kill a Hero in combat in one round using the Mass Combat Tables. Comparatively, Our lone Hero could potentially kill 4 HF units that represent 80 men in a single round! Four units of HF (80 men) cost 8 points, 2 units of LH (40 men) cost 6 points, our lone Hero costs 20 points.

What I'm describing is consistent with the Fantasy Supplement. Why else would it include these troop type equivalencies in the descriptions? Why would it specifically say, "When meleed by regular troops, and combat takes place on the non-Fantasy Combat Tables, four simultaneous kills must be scored against Heroes to eliminate them".

In fact, the description under Heroes actually uses the proper terminology when it says, "They have the fighting ability of 4 figures." This gives no allusion to scale because a figure could be 1:1, 1:10, or 1:20. It all depends on the game, scenario, or situation at hand. Therefore, the lone Hero can have the fighting ability of 4, 40, or 80 men depending on the scale of the game. 400 points worth of heroes would have the fighting ability of 80, 800, or 1600 men respectively.

The magic swords and magic armor, in fact, only work on the 1:1 scale. There is no means of adjudicating magic armor/weapons in mass combat. Only man-to-man and FCT.

According to page 38, magic swords add 1 die in normal combat. This is definately not a reference to Man-to-Man or FCT. I would extrapolate the same thing for magic armor since it does not specifically say (-1 die for opponent).

[cooper]

Well, were at an impass. At no point ever is a hero equal to 80 men, this is quite self evident if only how the hero was presented in 0d&d and in what the fantasy supplement was designed for--specifically to play out battles from the hobbit and lord of the rings.

It can obviously be done as you describe (I personally like to run combat with 1:1 rules...using the mass combat rules). But it is certainly not the intent of the game, nor do point values align with this system (a 20 point hero in your 1:20 scale is vaaaaastly more useful and powerful than 20 points of any normal unit). Combat systems are scale neutral, I can run ad&d on a 1:20 scale but that doesn't mean it is the intent.

Especially given the fact that original D&D was compatable with all the combat systems of chainmail, your contention that a 4th level fighter can be 40 men doesn't make much sense, although it is understandable as I made a similar misjudgment when first learning the rules as well.

[derv]

Nov 11, 2013 20:30:23 GMT -6 cooper said:

Well, were at an impass. At no point ever is a hero equal to 80 men, this is quite self evident if only how the hero was presented in 0d&d and in what the fantasy supplement was designed for--specifically to play out battles from the hobbit and lord of the rings.

It can obviously be done as you describe (I personally like to run combat with 1:1 rules...using the mass combat rules). But it is certainly not the intent of the game, nor do point values align with this system (a 20 point hero in your 1:20 scale is vaaaaastly more useful and powerful than 20 points of any normal unit). Combat systems are scale neutral, I can run ad&d on a 1:20 scale but that doesn't mean it is the intent.

Especially given the fact that original D&D was compatable with all the combat systems of chainmail, your contention that a 4th level fighter can be 40 men doesn't make much sense, although it is understandable as I made a similar misjudgment when first learning the rules as well.

I certainly understand the desire to reconcile Chainmail with OD&D and I understand the point you are making. The thing is, Chainmail was published first. I'm choosing not to allow my knowledge of OD&D, FFC, or AD&D to taint my reading of the rules.

Case in point, in OD&D could a 4th level fighter shoot and kill a dragon out of the sky using the ACS? Yet, even a 1st level fighter can hit and do damage to a dragon using the ACS. He's going to die, but he can score a hit (the same could be said for the 4th level fighter). In Chainmail, normal troop types can do no damage to a dragon. A Hero can shoot and kill a dragon out of the sky on a roll of 10+.

So, I'm going to agree to disagree with your comment that, "at no point ever is a hero equal to 80 men".

For the perceived point cost problem, a solution could be to allow so many points towards "normal" troop types (to include goblins, orcs, kobolds, etc.)and so many points towards "fantastic" types (to include all listed on the FCT).

[waysoftheearth]

Nov 11, 2013 22:39:09 GMT -6 derv said:

Case in point, in OD&D could a 4th level fighter shoot and kill a dragon out of the sky using the ACS? Yet, even a 1st level fighter can hit and do damage to a dragon using the ACS. He's going to die, but he can score a hit (the same could be said for the 4th level fighter). In Chainmail, normal troop types can do no damage to a dragon. A Hero can shoot and kill a dragon out of the sky on a roll of 10+.

Worthwhile noting, perhaps?, that OD&D monsters also have all the special benefits ascribed to them in CM (it says so on p5 of M&T). Thus OD&D dragons are also impervious to normal missiles (but whether or not the ref chooses to apply this protection to the youngest dragons is a matter of interpretation).

Also, regarding shooting down a flying dragon (or any flier for that matter), the ground-to-air missile rules (U&WA p27) would probably apply and these explain how any missile hit could be critical and could potentially result in a "dead in the air" or other terminal result... so (if you use those rules) it is plausible that a hero could shoot down a flying dragon

[Stormcrow]

Derv is correct in his interpretation. A Chainmail Hero is worth four figures in mass combat, which is equal to 80 men. Heroes and Superheroes are not just commander-figures.

None of the figures listed on the Fantasy Combat Table were designed to fight on the Man-to-Man tables, but if a Hero does he gets four attacks and is worth only four men, not 80.

Why does a Hero's ability change so much in different modes of combat? Because Chainmail and D&D were never meant to be a unified whole, seamlessly simulating any battle at any scale. You just have to accept that Heroes will seem vastly more powerful on a battlefield than in close quarters, and not worry about the apparent discrepancy.

[cooper]

Of course they are just commander figures,

heroes...in this class are certain well-known knights, leaders of army contingents, and similar men

None of the figures listed on the Fantasy Combat Table were designed to fight on the Man-to-Man tables

Really? I'll quote from the magic armor section pg. 38 "magic armor subtracts one from opponent's attack dice on the Fantasy Table, three on Man-to-Man attacks (meaning 2d6-3 when rolling a man to man attack against a hero in magic armor). Funny, no reference to mass combat rules.

the wording is the same in both sections including the rallying of troops and adding +1 to mass combat rolls of units they are subsumed in and the fact they are the last to be killed. Heroes are "zoomed in" and have subtle impact on mass combat.

I'll repeat it again. the heroes in CHAINMAIL are designed to allow for battles from the hobbit and lord of the rings, Strider, bard, et al do not fight as 80 men, it says it right in their description that they are subsumed in the unit they fight with and the only noticeable effect (a powerful one mind you) is that they add +1 to all the units dice rolls and can rally troops. What some of you are saying is that 4 units of hero can join 2 unit of normal troops and then the 6 HF (120 men) or what have can roll 6d6/x-x in mass combat. This is on it's face ridiculous. Gygax's own play throughs of the battle of the five armies has beorn fighting Bolg and his bodyguards, it is not 160 beorns fighting 80 Bolgs. Heroes are virtually invisible in mass combat, but the action zooms in to the 1:1 scale for significant battles. You are free to use the mass combat rules at a 1:1 scale, but you cannot inflate a hero into 1:20 scale and expect your points and armies to have any meaning whatsoever. War-gamers would have laughed at ridiculously bad rules attempting to emulate a tolkiens battle.

What actually happens is that a hero joins 2 units of HF, the Heavy foot would normally roll 2d6/5-6 to score a casualty, but now with a hero leading them, they roll 2d6/4-6 in mass combat. They don't go from 2 units up to 6 plus a commander bonus.

"a superhero armed with a bow shoots a dragon and kills it on a roll of 8+" It's not a battalion of super-heroes shooting arrows at flights of dragons. The indoor/outdoor scale of d&d comes directly from this mass/individual combat duality in CM.

How do 40 wizards cast a single spell? This really is ridiculous. Does a wizard get to cast 1 confusion spell and effect 20 units (400 men?) of enemy troops? of course not, it would break whatever game you are playing. wizard spells are at the 1:1 individual scale of the game along with the other fantastic foes (of which orcs and goblins are not fantastic and so are at the 1:20 ratio). A wizards spell that effects "20 enemy" is literally 20 men in man-to-man scale.

I probably shouldn't get worked up about this, because the moment you try and run a game with heroes at 1:20 scale your game will collapse under it's own paradoxes. Does a hero add +1 to himself if he is 4 units of mass combat? Can he roll 4d6/4-6 to score a casualty instead of 4d6/5-6? Or does the +1 only come into effect if this massive 4d6 unit of "hero" join a 1 unit group of troops? The game you are describing is broken beyond repair and not fit to emulate fantasy combat at all. Gimli and Legolas can each slaughter a thousand goblins instead of 79 and 22.


Where were the letters to Gygax asking why heroes went from 80 men to 4 men in d&d? Why aren't 30-300 orcs led by 80-160 heroes? why does ad&d say that fireball radius does not change when moving from indoor to outdoor scale? Why weren't war gamers asking these questions? Why made gygax decide that a dragon was only worth 10 men (10HD) instead of 100?

to quote insane clown posse, "Reading comprehension, how does it work?" If a rule seems ridiculous, the first thing you should do is ask if you are somehow misinterpreting it.

Case in point, in OD&D could a 4th level fighter shoot and kill a dragon out of the sky using the ACS?

Yes, thats how "arrows of slaying" got invented in d&d. You arm your 4th level hero with an arrow of dragon slaying and follow the modified rules presented in 0d&d. Gygax stripped lots of abilities from heroes and wizards in d&d and chose instead to re-introduce them as particular spells or magic items.

Look at magic items again, read the section on magic armor. subtracts