|
Post by derv on Nov 16, 2013 18:40:33 GMT -6
Yes, that is a plausible conclusion cooper. I will add that to my personal notes for now.
My only reservations to this are that he can kill an ogre with one hit on FCT with a magic weapon, but it requires 3 hits against an ogre in "normal" combat without one (not to mention the other FCT figures). This is a 3 hit reduction compared to other troops. It is also apples to oranges in comparison to orcs and goblins because he is not gaining any attack die, but it warrants more consideration.
Also, see my additional note under Elves 1.b. 1.b.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Nov 17, 2013 12:08:51 GMT -6
These are some initial evaluations of a (1:1) Hero using a magic sword with the seperate combat tables. There is no judgement on preferred scale on the combat tables except the FCT which is always 1:1.
A. Hero vs. Anti-Hero on FCT (2d6 table) both figures are 1:1 -Target number is "7" for both figures -Magic sword gives +1 pip to total die roll -There is a 58.3% probability of rolling 7+ -+1 pip raises probability to 72.2% -a hit= a kill.
B. Hero on Mass Combat Tables (1d6 table) Hero is 1:1, HF are either 1:1 or 1:20 -Hero has fighting ability of 4 AF and is 1:1 figure -Magic sword adds 1 die
-4 AF (hero) vs 4 HF (either 1:1 or 1:20)= 1die per man/5-6 kills -*note: if hero was HF, he would still roll 1 die per man, but would only score a kill on 6. -Hero recieves 5 die each round/5-6 kills (the magic sword gives an additional 33.3% probability of a kill on 1 die) -*A hero can only kill 1 figure per round regardless of number of kills rolled. It would take a minimum of 4 rounds to kill 4 HF figures (4-80 men). This idea is not explicit in the Chainmail rules.
-4 HF must inflict 4 simultaneous hits to kill a Hero -4 HF vs. AF= 1 die per two men/6 kills -*it would take a minimum of 2 rounds of combat for 4 HF to kill a Hero with simultaneous hits in this example.
C. Hero on MtM (2d6 table) Hero is 1:1, HF are either 1:1 or 1:20 -Hero receives 4 attacks -Magic sword adds an extra die to all attacks.
-AF (hero)= plate & sword (AC 7) -4 HF= chain + shield & sword (AC 6) -*simultaneous hits rule still applies -*Hero can only kill one opponent per round (see notes above).
-A sword vs plate= 10+ to hit -A sword vs. chain/shield= 9+ to hit
-To score 10+ on 2d6 has a 16.67% probability. -To score 9+ on 3d6 has a 74.07% probability (on 2d6 it is a 27.7% probability)
-Interestingly, if instead of adding a die on this table you would add +1 pip for a magic sword, the probability would increase to 41.67% to score 9+ on 2d6. -*to me this makes more sense and is a reasonable approach for this table when using a magic sword. -*the idea of adding extra die to this table is further exacerbated with elves vs. orcs and goblins (I will be evaluating elves with magic weapons separately).
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Nov 17, 2013 12:16:36 GMT -6
Non-fantastic figures always fight at 1:20 on the mass-combat tables. A Hero will never fight 1 HF at 1:1.
This would have to be true of any kind of figure acting singly. You're right that Chainmail does not specify whether this is the case.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Nov 17, 2013 12:34:32 GMT -6
Non-fantastic figures always fight at 1:20 on the mass-combat tables. A Hero will never fight 1 HF at 1:1. As I stated, I am not making any judgement on preferred scale at this time. I am simply looking at the mechanics and whether it can be done. In relation to the Hero fighting HF at 1:1, it would be 4 HF figures fighting 1 Hero on the MtM or Mass Combat Tables. Eventually, this would result in 1 HF figure fighting the Hero, if Hero can only score 1 kill per round. Again, no judgement on scale. Just a question of does it work mechanically. Ultimately, this is an exercise in making sense out of the language used in the Magic Weapons Section on page 38. I may have problems with your assessments when it comes to Magic Armor where it specifically states -3 pips on Man-to-Man attacks. Who would our Hero be fighting man-to-man then?
|
|
|
Post by derv on Nov 17, 2013 14:28:50 GMT -6
Enchanted Arrows -Hero armed with long bow (21" range) -Hero= 4 HF (men/units)
A. Mass Combat vs. ~~1. Unarmored= 1 kill ~~2. 1/2 Armored= 1 kill ~~3. Fully Armored= 1 kill *no die roll required * limited only by the max range of weapon
B. MtM -1 kill and requires no die roll *note: the only thing to consider is max range vs. AC on Individual Fires With Missiles Table.
C. FCT -Hero would roll 2d6 jusy as in melee. *Elves would be treated as Hero-type on FCT -Hero would get an additional +3 against flying dragons *normal target number against dragons is 12 on FCT. Heroes target number is 10 (+2 pips) against flying dragons without enchanted arrow and becomes 9 (+1 pip) with enchanted arrow.
General Conclusions: Enchanted arrows do not have any innate problems for any of the combat tables. Any problems would exist simply with a persons feelings on scale i.e. should a Hero be able to kill a 1:20 figure (20 men) with 1 arrow?
|
|
|
Post by derv on Nov 17, 2013 15:37:45 GMT -6
2) +1d6 makes perfect sense in MtM combat. Magic armor gives a -3 to attack and instead of a magic sword simply negating this, it provides an average of +3 to the attack. You normally roll a 2d6 attack on the MtM table, but with a magic sword you roll a 3d6. If he's mounted you roll 3d6-1, if you are also a ranger and he's wearing magic armor it's 3d6-3. Without this bonus it is literally impossible to kill a mounted enemy in magic armor. 2d6-4 means almost no attack is possible as most require 8+ Cooper, I was trying to work out what you were saying here in order to test it out and I just realized this is not an example for MtM. This would involve the FCT. Maybe I'm misreading your examples, but it sounds like you have two fantastic figures facing off here when you are talking about magic armor and magic swords. The bonuses only belong to those who can wield magic weapons (aka hero, wizards, elves). Just looking for some clarity in case I'm missing the point.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Nov 17, 2013 19:17:07 GMT -6
Magic Armor: A. FCT (2d6 table) -subtracts one pip from opponents attack dice. -one hit= 1 kill
-Hero (wearing magic armor) vs. Anti-Hero -Both would have a target number of 7+ (a 58.3% probability), but Anti-Hero would have to score 8+ (a 41.67% probability) because of magic armor of Hero. This is a reduction of 16.67% due to bell curve. *Magic Armor's effectiveness will vary with opponent meleed on the table because of bell curve.
B. MtM (2d6 table) -subtracts 3 pips from opponents attack dice.
-Hero (wearing magic armor)-Chain & sword (AC 5) vs. 4 HF- Chain + shield & sword (AC 5) -HF (1:1 or 1:20) must score 4 simultaneous hits to kill Hero
-HF with swords must score a 8+ to hit AC 5 (41.67% probability). Against magic armor +3= 11+ to hit (8.3% probability). This is a reduction of 33.3% probability.
Additional notes: -It is impossible to score a hit on certain combinations of weapons vs. magic armor. ~a. handaxe, spear vs. AC 5 ~b. dagger, handaxe, spear vs. AC 6 ~c. dagger, handaxe, sword, spear, vs. AC 7 ~d. dagger, handaxe, sword, battleaxe, spear, polearms, pike vs. AC 8
C. Mass Combat Tables (1d6 table) *as stated before, there is no information given within Magic Armor description.
Some suggestions: ~1. opponent could lose 1 attack die against Hero in magic armor. ~*this means certain troop types could not attack Hero under certain conditions (not enough units). ~2. Hero could attack as a certain troop type and defend as 1-2 troop types higher. ~*this would have variable effects based on troop type of both attacker and defender, but it may actually better reflect conditions created on MtM table.
-The four simultaneous hits rule would still apply to Heroes.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Nov 24, 2013 10:18:48 GMT -6
These are my final notes related to Magic Weapons in Chainmail. I hope they have helped clarify their use in a game. Feel free to question or add to the content if it does not seem to address a specific situation.
We’ve taken a look at Magic Weapons and their possible application with each of the combat tables. Now I want to look at the unique case of Elves in Chainmail. Regularly elves would be considered a 1:20 “normal” figure with a point cost of 4. This would get you one figure that represents 20 “normal” men of HF. As “normal” troop types they can perform split-moves like horsemen, even though they are footmen. They can also turn invisible. Elves are a special case when armed with a magic sword. In addition to the abilities already mentioned, they become more powerful in combat. As we established earlier, magic weapons are for 1:1 figures. Such elves would no longer be a 1:20 figure. Instead, they would be a 1:1 figure with the fighting ability of 1 HF. The combined point cost for such a figure would be 14 pts (compared to a 1:1 Hero cost of 20 pts.). The magic sword would give them +1 die in “normal” combat, +2 dice against orcs, +3 dice against Goblins. They will also be able to melee on the FCT with target numbers listed on pg. 29-30. Such an elf armed with enchanted arrows can fire against “fantastic” figures on the FCT as a Hero-type. An elf is not a Hero though and there is no special mention of them having the ability of shooting flying dragons out of the sky with enchanted arrows. In fact the elf does not even have the ability to melee dragons with magic swords, but they can shoot at a grounded dragon with an enchanted arrow on the FCT. To do so would involve rolling a target number of 11+ (5.56% probability).
Evaluation of Elves with Magic Weapons
A. Magic Swords (+1 die) ~1. Mass Combat Table (1d6 Table) ~~a. Elf (1:1) vs. HF (either 1:1 or 1:20) ~~*Elf is HF as stated on the FRT on page 43 ~~*HF vs. HF= 1 die per man/ 6 kills ~~*Elf would receive an extra die (giving him an additional 16.67% probability of a kill each round). ~~b. Elf (1:1) vs. HF Orcs (either 1:1 or 1:20) ~~*Elf receives 2 extra dice (this would give him a 3:1 attack ratio against orcs) ~~* He would have a 4:1 attack ratio against goblins with a 33.3% probability of a kill on each die. HF vs. LF= 1 die per man/ 5-6 kills.
~2. MtM (2d6 Table) ~~a. Elf (chain mail and sword) vs.. orc (chain mail and mace) ~~* plus 2 dice for magic sword against orcs ~~*sword vs. chain= target number of 8+ ~~~1. On 2d6 there is a 41.67% probability of a kill ~~~2. On 4d6 there is a 97.3% probability of a kill ~~~3. On 5d6 (as related to goblins) there is a 99.73% probability of a kill ~~*even with a target number of 12+ there is a 76.08% probability of a kill ~~* Again, this does not seem like the proper application of this table. I’d be more inclined to add +2 pips to the die total instead. This would turn a target number of 8+ into a target number of 6+ (this produces a 72.2% probability of a kill against orcs with 2d6. An increase of 30.6% probability).
~3. FCT (2d6 table) ~~a. Elf (1:1) with magic sword vs. Hero (1:1) ~~* Elf would have to score a 9+ as presented on page 29. ( a 27.78% probability) ~~* Hero would have to score a 7+ on FCT (a 58.3% probability) ~~~1. The target numbers for both figures makes it evident that such an elf is not a Hero. But it does not specifically say how an elf is to defend on the FCT and is assumed to be as a Hero-type. ~~~2. A key point here is that the elf could kill a Hero with one hit (compared to 4 simultaneous hits in normal combat without a magic weapon). ~~b. Special mention should be given to the elf vs. ogre. ~~* With a magic sword an elf would have a target number of 7+ on the FCT. One hit= kill. This is actually better then the Hero on the FCT. ~~* An Ogre would have to score a 8+ on 2d6. ~~* without a magic sword, an elf would have to make 3 cumulative hits to kill an ogre in normal combat ( a reduction of 50% compared to other troop types). This is found on page 34 under ogres description and this same rule does not apply to True Trolls. ~~*special note: it has been suggested that elves be granted +2 dice against goblins and +1 die against orcs in normal combat considering the magic sword grants +1 die on its own. This seems to be a sound conclusion (but see my notes above on the MtM) ~~b. The use of the FCT with Elves is pretty straight forward.
B. Enchanted Arrows (1:1 HF Elf) ~1. Mass Combat & MtM- no roll required ~*normal’s are always hit ~*simply consult missile table and calculate max range for weapon. ~* the main problem would be a persons views on scale (could one enchanted arrow reasonably eliminate a 1:20 figure) ~2. FCT (2d6 table) ~Elf (1:1) vs. Hero (1:1) with a target number of 7+ (a 58.3% probability of a kill) ~* 4 simultaneous hit rule for Hero does not apply. ~* Elf would have a max range of 18” (as noted on FRT on pg. 43). Presumably this is like a horse bow even though elf is a footman. ~* Elf fires missiles as a Hero-type.
~Special notes: ~1. One fact should be mentioned about elves and enchanted arrows, these are a one shot item. Once the enchanted arrows are used up, the elf would lose all “fantastic” qualities associated with the magic item and presumed to revert back to a “normal” figure (either 1:1 or absorbed into a 1:20 unit). ~2. The magic sword and magic armor are different in this respect. Such an elf would be a 1:1 figure that gains +1 die in normal combat. He might be attached to a unit or he might act independently. ~* Attached to a unit, it might be possible to make a comparison to the “leader” found on page 26. Leaders are given +1 to all their dice. ~* Similar parallels could be made between the Hero and “commander” (mentioned on page 21) when attached to a body of troops. ~* The commander and leader seem to have unique applications for historic simulations and they do not have the special abilities of the fantastic types, but their roles could be utilized in fantastic play in the figures of the elf and hero, if a player chose to attach them to a unit.
|
|
jacar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 345
|
Post by jacar on Nov 26, 2013 13:13:05 GMT -6
So I think a lot of the problem regarding what a hero can and cannot do revolves around the scale and the act that the time scale is ridiculously short for massed combat but is adequate for MtM combat. The time scale is 1 minute. Consider, a unit of troops could do several things in a round and then become exhausted. All in 1 minute. That is fine and believable. It may then rest and become fully restored in 1 minute by doing nothing. Less believable. If you also consider how bloody in nature CM combat is, most massed battles would be over in a matter of minutes based on the time scale. In reality, battles often went several hours or even all day with plenty of breaks in the action.
Where does it say they can only kill 1 figure in massed combat per round? I found the verbiage about killing only 1 figure per turn in MtM combat but not in massed combat.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Nov 26, 2013 16:45:35 GMT -6
Yes, I think scale as it relates to time and numbers would be the big hang up for people. Mechanics wise, it works. Where does it say they can only kill 1 figure in massed combat per round? I found the verbiage about killing only 1 figure per turn in MtM combat but not in massed combat. It's purely conjecture. Maybe I shouldn't have included it in my examples. It just seems to make good sense in the way it creates balance. The original passage came from the U&WA on page 25 under Land Combat. "Battles involving large numbers of figures can be fought at a 20:1 ratio, with single fantastic types fighting seperately at 1:1 or otherwise against but a single 20:1 figure."
|
|
jacar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 345
|
Post by jacar on Nov 27, 2013 15:08:58 GMT -6
It's kind of funny when you need a book from another game to get a clarification for Chainmail! I suspect if you were just playing CM, these guys could just add their 4 (or 8!) dice to the combat and kill as many figures as hits. The rule in DnD may have been to curb the power of a potential player character. The DnD way does make a lot of sense for a realistic sort of game. But what if you were playing Elric who routinely waded in and slaughtered many?
|
|
|
Post by derv on Nov 27, 2013 15:34:47 GMT -6
This is true. If you enjoy Epic games, I think CM could deliver the goods
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Nov 27, 2013 16:40:09 GMT -6
You don't think twenty men in one minute is "many"?
|
|
|
Post by derv on Nov 28, 2013 7:40:23 GMT -6
I'm not sure if you are asking me this question Stormcrow? But, yes, 20 men in one minute could be considered "many". As you can see, I'm trying to skirt the whole scale issue because I realize there are people that feel strongly about this issue on both sides of the fence. As I tried to present, the mechanics of the game will work either way- run all your figures 1:20, run all your figures 1:1, or mix your figures 1:1 and 1:20.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Dec 15, 2013 17:58:36 GMT -6
Chainmail UpgradeI'm stepping up in the world. I took the suggestion found in the intro to Chainmail and purchased some 1:72 Airfix figures. I'm now in the process of making these figures more useful for a game. Many thanks to jmccann for his helpful blog post on prepping these figures. Currently I'm in the process of putting bases on them to make them more stable. Gone are the days of using cardboard markers for representing troops. I purchased two sets, the Romans and the Ancient Britons (I also bought the Robin Hood set). My next game will involve a small skirmish that includes members of the Legio IX Hispano (missing 9th Legion) and the tribes of the Caledonian low lands (c. 125 AD). This is during the reign of Publius Aelius Hadrainus Augustus before the building of the Hadrian Wall. It has been suggested that the 9th legion was removed from rosters because they were disgraced by cowardess or, otherwise, they may have been anihilated.....SIT TIBI TERRA LEVIS. I know it's not medieval or fantasy, but I think Chainmail will meet the needs of this time period .
|
|
|
Post by thorswulf on Dec 16, 2013 8:37:34 GMT -6
Looks pretty good to me! Have fun with the figs, and gaming with them!
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Dec 23, 2013 16:57:55 GMT -6
Nice new figures!
A lot of the problems in this thread revolve around scale, which is to say whether 1:10, 1:20 or 1:1 is used or even mixed together. What I would say about that is "forget it". It is almost completely irrelevant to the play of the game, which is only really interested in the figures being used. 5 Heavy Horse can be representative of 5, 10, 20 or literally any other number of men without it ever affecting play. Given Gygax's responses when questioned on the mixing of scale, I think it is pretty safe to say the Fantasy Supplement only used the mass combat and fantasy combat rules, regardless of whether 1:1 or 1:10.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Dec 23, 2013 20:41:52 GMT -6
Nice new figures! A lot of the problems in this thread revolve around scale, which is to say whether 1:10, 1:20 or 1:1 is used or even mixed together. What I would say about that is "forget it". It is almost completely irrelevant to the play of the game, which is only really interested in the figures being used. 5 Heavy Horse can be representative of 5, 10, 20 or literally any other number of men without it ever affecting play. Given Gygax's responses when questioned on the mixing of scale, I think it is pretty safe to say the Fantasy Supplement only used the mass combat and fantasy combat rules, regardless of whether 1:1 or 1:10. I basically agree with your sentiment about scale in Chainmail. My only exception is your final statement (which doesn't directly have to do with scale) that the Fantasy Supplement only used the mass combat and fantasy combat rules. The rules for sieges found on page 22 suggests they be used in combination with the rules for man-to-man combat. Then on page 38-39 of the Fantasy Supplement we recieve additional rules for incorporating fantastic figures into such a scenario. Also found on page 38 are instructions for the use of magic weapons and armor that include MtM (these are only used by fantastic figures). I'm of the belief that all three combat systems in Chainmail are relevent to the Fantasy Supplement and are best suited to different situations. A possible reason for the MtM Chainmail rules holding less importance, as reflected by Gygax's response, is because D&D introduced the ACS which most hold up as a better approach.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Dec 24, 2013 8:49:27 GMT -6
Yeah, probably I was being too fervent in that regard. What I meant to convey was that the Fantasy Supplement really looks as though it was written for 1:1 scale using the mass combat tables, rather than man-to-man. That is only to be expected given the use of fantastical monsters, of course.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Dec 26, 2013 16:53:14 GMT -6
Chainmail could have definately been presented clearer with examples. I guess they were trying to keep the rules concise and possibly going on the assumption that their audience had experience in wargames and didn't need more guidance. I personally have spent alot of time going over the rules (and other wargame rule sets) trying to work out the intent of Gygax and Perren. That's what this thread is all about. I intentionally set up the scenarios I have to get clarification on how others are applying certain rules and whether I was reading them properly. This board has been a tremendous help to me in this effort. Truthfully, I don't know how anyone could unwrap the rules as written if they did not have any previous wargame experience or some one else to guide them.
Going back to your original comment and being more specifc, I think most of the contention with Chainmail in this thread has to do with the Fantasy Supplement and the use of 1:20 scale. 1:1 scale, being used for all figures with the Fantasy Supplement, would probably produce more satisfactory/realistic results in relation to melee, spell effects, missiles, and the hit areas of catapults/cannons. The percieved problems of playing Chainmail at 1:20 with the Fantasy Supplement can get even more pronounced when you start introducing PC's from your OD&D game. Once again, using 1:1 might produce more acceptable results. The main problem with this, as I see it, is that it turns Chainmail into more of a skimish rule set instead of the mass combat rule set it was originally intended to be. And truthfully, it doesn't really bother me when stretching the limits in these areas with the mass combat system anyway.
Without the Fantasy Supplement, the mass combat system works pefectly well at 1:20, though some may still question the hit areas for catapults.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jan 6, 2014 6:46:10 GMT -6
I am not sure it really matters that the Fantasy Supplement would end up working as a skirmish rule set than as a mass combat one. Generally speaking, in practice the figures on the tabletop are all you really see, regardless of whether they represent 1, 10 or 20 individuals. That said, Gygax did not seem too bothered about mixing 1:1 and 1:20 scale during the "Battle of the Moathouse" a few years before his death. As I say, the nominal scale barely matters, it is really just about the figures.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 6, 2014 18:42:31 GMT -6
I am not sure it really matters that the Fantasy Supplement would end up working as a skirmish rule set than as a mass combat one. Generally speaking, in practice the figures on the tabletop are all you really see, regardless of whether they represent 1, 10 or 20 individuals. That said, Gygax did not seem too bothered about mixing 1:1 and 1:20 scale during the "Battle of the Moathouse" a few years before his death. As I say, the nominal scale barely matters, it is really just about the figures. I think you and I are in agreement Matthew. I see it very much the same way. My mention of the Fantasy Supplement was two fold, with both points related. First, how was the rules originally intended to be played before the Supplement? I feel it was originally intended to be played at 1:10 or 1:20 as presented in the opening paragraphs of the rules on page 8 (I'm referring to the LGTSA). Second, in how it relates to mixing scales. This really only happens when the Fantasy Supplement is used. Further, my comment was simply recognizing that this does not always produce satisfactory results for others, though at straight 1:1 scale (skirmish) there is not as much of an issue. It is most apparent when you try to reconcile a PC's fighting abilities from D&D with Chainmail at 1:20. Now your 2nd level warrior all of a sudden has the fighting ability of 2 Heavy Foot figures that represent 40 "normal" men. How would a 2nd level warrior fair in comparison facing 40 bandits with 1 HD each using the ACS? But, at straight 1:1 scale in Chainmail, we're talking about our 2nd level warrior having the fighting ability of 2 "normal" men. This seems more acceptable when you are considering the power level of a PC in game. I don't personally think either way is right or wrong. In fact, I think it's a benefit that Chainmail is flexible enough to use either approach and the mechanics will work.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jan 7, 2014 5:41:44 GMT -6
I am sure that the non-fantasy rules were for 1:10 and 1:20 scale play. Also, I suppose catapults and canons were for sieges, which were fought at 1:1 scale. Probably the initial Fantasy rules were also for 1:10 and 1:20 scale, and allowed for fantastical units (orcs, goblins, dwarves, et cetera). That would mean that the introduction of individual heroes and monsters changed the dynamic.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 7, 2014 16:47:01 GMT -6
Precisely.
I will note that the original LGTSA rules, as posted on Jon Peterson's blog, make no mention to scale. I may be taking liberty, based on the opening paragraphs of Chainmail, in assuming that these early rules were also intended for 1:10 or 1:20. In making this assumption, it is interesting that they include rules for seiges, as well as catapults and cannons. It is also obvious that there is no Man to Man Combat Tables present. At some point Gary decided seiges were best handled in a different way and developed the man to man rules.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jan 9, 2014 5:13:37 GMT -6
The version published in Panzerfaust (April, 1970) specifies that the miniatures used were 40mm, and the version in the Domesday Book says the same and specifies a scale of 1:10. The documents in question are on Peterson's blog: LGSTA Medieval Miniatures Rules.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 9, 2014 16:15:19 GMT -6
Right Matthew, I was referring to the mimeographed 5 page article that appeared in Panzerfaust. This was an earlier iteration of the rules. Peterson goes on to say that the Domesday Book #5 version of the rules had been expanded to seven and a half pages and included some changes. As you point out, one of these changes/expansions is that it includes information that the rules are intended for 1:10 scale (ratio).
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jan 11, 2014 0:21:23 GMT -6
I see, so what you are suggesting is that during the two months between publications there might have been a shift from 1:1 to 1:10 scale? I suppose that is possible, certainly the mix of siege and battle rules that are separated out by scale in CM may represent the vestiges of an original 1:1 scale system. Such a view is also supported by the army commander being a single figure in the PF version, and it suggests something interesting about the admonishment in CM that figures smaller than 30mm should not use the 1:10 scale, but rather 1:20.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 11, 2014 7:35:06 GMT -6
I see, so what you are suggesting is that during the two months between publications there might have been a shift from 1:1 to 1:10 scale? Is this what it seems like I'm suggesting? No, I'm suggesting that we cannot know the scale in the original article because it is not explicitly stated. We can assume it is 1:10 or 1:20 like the later article and Chainmail. Since I don't have any proof of what scale was used in the Panzerfaust rules and they can be played at 1:1 or 1:20, I was simply recognizing that I was making an assumption that may or may not be fact. If this assumption is true, then sieges were originally played at 1:10 or 1:20 with the mass combat tables.
|
|
Matthew
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 254
|
Post by Matthew on Jan 11, 2014 8:20:17 GMT -6
Yes, it is what it seemed you were suggesting. I am not indicating that you think the PF rules were 1:1. only admitting the possibility that they were, which has interesting connotations. Of course, if that is not the case, then it probably should be! After all, if we were to read the PF rules in their own context there would be no reason to suppose the scale was anything other than 1:1.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 11, 2014 8:34:51 GMT -6
I think it has interesting connotations in either case. If they were written for 1:1, then that means they originally played the Mass Combat Tables at 1:1. If they were written for 1:10, then the siege rules were originally played at 1:10 (Gary seemed to find it necessary to clarify scale in the Domesday Book article probably for this reason). Either way, Gary found it necessary to introduce the Man-to-Man tables at a later date, which has me wondering how these rules were developed and why?
|
|