TFT Related: What to do about Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Wizard...?

One of the consequences of TFT’s streamlined design was the combination of related yet separate attributes into a single “Super” attribute. For example, IQ is a combination of raw reasoning capability, memory, experience, perception, etc. while DX is a combination of manual dexterity and agility. One could easily separate these into several more attributes, as was done in D&D and most other systems. But by far the most thorny problem is that of ST, which is combining raw musculature, hit points, constitution, and endurance all in one package. While physique and hit points actually do make sense together, endurance does not - one can be very strong and yet lack endurance, and vice versa, even though both are tied to overall physical “wellness”. Now, much as I love streamlining and elegance, some purely comical situations arise under the TFT system. This is brought home most forcefully in the following description of the High Priest Faron-eld from Warrior Lords of Darok, in which it is stated that he is “Frail of frame,...” Yet, he has a Strength of 18 (!!!). To put this in the perspective of the TFT rules as written:

• He can wield a Great Sword (the most powerful melee weapon available, doing 3d+1 damage), and yet is “frail of frame”
• He can punch you in the face for 1d+1 (equivalent to a warhammer), and yet is “frail of frame”
• He can lift 324 kg (that’s over a third of a ton...), and yet is “frail of frame”
• He can wander around in cloth and leather armor without penalty, and yet is “frail of frame”
• Per ITL, he can also pick up “...items of furniture, BIG rocks, etc., and throw them for (1+1) damage”, ... and yet is still considered “frail of frame”

Geez! I wish I could have such a “frail frame”... I could arm wrestle Conan of Cimmeria and actually rip his relatively “puny” little arm off and beat him to death with it, if I so chose! I would sure hate to see what the module writers would have considered to be a robust frame...

Of course, the real problem here is that ST is used for both fatigue and physique, and since a wizard’s spells can exact a high price in terms of exhaustion “damage” (especially for the more potent spells), they are forced to bulk up like Hercules just to be viable spellcasters.

Naturally, I am hardly the first to notice this, and many house-rule solutions have been proffered to remedy this situation. They generally involve either creating a separate “Constitution” or “Endurance” type attribute,[1] or splitting ST in some manner so as to have a separate “Fatigue ST” (fST). These solutions will certainly work, but their general drawback is that they take away from the elegance of the basic TFT system.

There are three other approaches that have not really been proposed before, though. The first two involve the creation of new talents that allow for either additional fST points, reduction of fatigue damage or more efficient spell casting capability in terms of fatigue cost, while the last allows for using more than one IQ point to learn a given spell, which would give various benefits to include in some cases lower fatigue costs.

A straight-forward talent to add would be an “Endurance” talent, similar in concept to the existing “Running” talent, that could enhance one’s ability to take fatigue damage through yoga and other exercise. The in-game effect would in its simplest form be to arbitrarily add a few fST points to your total ST. Any loss of fST due to spells or other exertion would be taken from this, first. An alternative approach would either reduce the cost of the fST loss or spread it out over time better (or both). For example, a spell that cost 3 to cast and 1 to maintain might cost only 2 to cast and 1 every other turn to maintain. There would be at least two levels for this talent, maybe three. Adopting this approach would make the most sense if other fST costs and penalties were assessed for other strenuous activity, such as fighting for several turns, running in armor or running in general for long distances, etc.

Another approach would be talents geared specifically towards wizards. A truly skilled wizard may well be able to manipulate magical energies in such a manner as to gain the same “bang” for less fST “buck.” Using this approach you might have some sort of “Magery” or “Sorcery” talents that reduce the cost of casting and maintaining a spell (as explained above) and perhaps provide some other benefits as well.

The final method is simply to allow for “double” and “triple” memorization of spells, in other words, to practice them more intensely to allow the wizard to cast them more efficiently and/or effectively. Depending on the type of spell (T, M, C, or S) this allows for lower fST to cast, or perhaps greater effectiveness (or both). In many cases the wizard will expend less fST to cast the spell.

I have not settled on a final method, as each approach has advantages and disadvantages. I do kind of favor the multiple memorization of a given spell, which sort of treats each higher “level” of the spell as an advanced talent, sort of like UC1, UC2, UC3, etc., though I also like some of the ideas behind using talents, as well.

Bottom line, though, is that with these changes to the TFT rules you can make Lou Ferigno wizards a thing of the past!

---

[1] See especially Michael Friend’s articles in Vindicator Nos. 4 and 5.

Martian Metals “Microtures”

This blog post has been a long time coming. The intention is to gather into one place as much information as possible on miniatures produced by Martian Metals specifically for certain Metagaming products. I hope this information is of use to collectors and enthusiasts everywhere!

IMPORTANT NOTE! IF ANYONE HAS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, PICTURES, ETC. PLEASE SHARE! I will update and edit this post as appropriate to reflect any new information that is passed along, making this a living repository for this information.

Metagaming licensed Martian Metals, headed by Forrest Brown, to create dedicated miniatures for three of their products, called “Microtures.” O.G.R.E., The Fantasy Trip, and Rivets each had their line of Microtures. These seem to have been produced from late 1978 until January 30^th, 1983 when the Martian Metals factory burned down due to an electrical short.

Forrest Brown, seen at Hobby Industry of America 1981 trade show

The factory was located in Cedar, TX, close to Metagaming’s headquarters in Austin. The fire that shut down their business really only destroyed the molds; the master models were not harmed. However, despite being fully insured, it appears that it was enough of a setback that they went out of business anyway.

The advertisement shown below features Microtures for OGRE in 1/300 scale and THE FANTASY TRIP in 15mm. Each package of the TFT Microtures contained an assortment of metal fantasy figures, usually about a dozen or more man-sized figures, and a smaller number of larger figures, and featured optional hex bases that were compatible with the facing and movement requirements of Melee/Wizard/ITL.

The first seven packages were to be available in December of 1978, per Space Gamer No. 20 (Nov-Dec 1978). An announcement in the “Where We’re Going” column stated “The first packages of Metagaming’s Microtures (trademark applied for) will be available by the time you read this.” and “The best we’ll manage is some miniatures produced under license in December, 1978...” (this last statement was in reference to new products intended for early 1978 release). Also, the advertisement for the Microtures on the following page made clear which ones were available. Here is a full list of all known TFT-related Microtures, compiled from several advertisements:

TFT 01        Heroes and Heroines $2.95 (2 ea. Man w/two hand axe, Man w/two hand sword, Man w/bow, Man w/sword, Woman w/sword, Woman w/bow, Woman w/dagger)

TFT 02        Wizards $2.95 (2 ea. Clerics, Clerics w/staff, Sorcerer, Sorcerer’s Apprentice, Sorcerer w/pedestal, Wizard, Wizard w/staff)

TFT 03        Dwarves $2.95 (2 ea. Dwarf w/bow, w/spear*, w/axe, w/sword, leather, Dwarf w/chainmail spear*, w/hammer, w/crossbow, w/two hand axe)

TFT 04        Elves $2.95 (2 ea. Elf w/sword, Kneeling w/bow, Standing w/bow, Chainmail w/sword, w/bow, w/spear standing; 1 ea. Elf chainmail w/spear kneeling, Leather w/spear)

TFT 05        Labyrinth Dwellers $2.95 (2 ea. wolves, bear, gargoyles; 1 ea. giant, ogre)

TFT 06        Orcs $2.95 (4 ea. Orcs w/bow, w/sword, w/crossbow, w/poleaxe)

TFT 07        Hobgoblins $2.95 (2 ea. Hobgoblin w/sword, w/scimitar, Standing w/bow, Kneeling w/bow, w/axe, w/hammer; 1 ea. Hobgoblin w/polearm, w/poleaxe)

TFT 08        Dragon (One-Hex) $2.95 (1 ea. Dragon, Treasure chest, Gold pile)

TFT 09        Orcs No. 2 (2 ea. Great Orc w/sword, w/cree [sic], w/axe, w/swordaxe, Standing w/bow, kneeling w/bow; 1 ea. Great Orc w/poleaxe, Commander)

TFT 10        Hobgoblins No. 2 (6 bows, 6 axes)

TFT 11        Labyrinth Dwellers No. 2 $2.95 (2 ea. spiders, scorpions; 1 ea. slimes, molds)

TFT 12        Seven-hex Dragon $7.95 (1 ea. Dragon)

TFT 13        Halflings $2.95 (3 ea. Halfling w/dagger, w/sword & shield, w/sword, Standing w/bow, kneeling w/bow, w/axe)

TFT 14        Trolls $2.95 (2 ea. Trolls w/club, w/hammer, w/two hand axe, w/two hand sword)

TFT 15        Goblins $2.95 (3 ea. Goblin w/sword, w/axe, w/bow, w/spear; 1 ea. Wolf Rider w/axe, w/bow)

TFT 16        Dragon (Four hex) $4.95 (1 ea. Dragon w/treasure chest, Gold pile)

TFT 17        Giants

Most of the descriptions come from the ad run in Space Gamer No. 25, and are probably reasonably correct. It is to be noted that there are some differences between titles and contents descriptions from earlier to later ads.

As can be seen, dragons are covered pretty well, though nothing past 7 hex. Giants, trolls, orcs, gobins, hobgoblins, and most “adventuring” types covered. However, there are some glaring omissions. Octopi are not in any of these sets, nor does one find centaurs, reptile men, horses, elementals, demons, and so forth. Perhaps there were plans for such that were never realized.

As for the TFT Microtures themselves, they are reasonably good, but not up to the contemporary standards set by, say, Ral Partha. Some of the poses do seem to based on artwork from TFT counters; for example, the giants in the TFT 17 package, seen here:

...look an awful lot like this giant:

One must, however, question the decision to go with 15mm scale, as opposed to 25mm, given that the hexes on the standard Melee, Wizard, and other maps and megahexes are ⅞” across, and yet represent a scale distance of “1-1/3 meters” across, making the minis grossly undersized. Indeed, if they were truly at the proper scale, 30mm minis would have been required! Presumably the scale was decided by the fact that 15mm minis are cheaper than 25mm, which is in keeping with the general Metagaming philosophy of inexpensive but fun products. This might have worked had they scaled down the hexes, to say ½” across (which, interestingly, was the usual size of most Microgame maps), but as released the TFT Microtures simply do not “fit” the hex grid that well.

Also, 25mm allows much more scope for detail than 15mm. Not to say that 15mm minis lack detail, but you can simply do a lot more with 25mm. Ral Partha, again, provides a good case in point.

While they are not bad miniatures, they are not great, either. As can be seen in the various attached photos the level of detail isn’t spectacular. Better than most of the contemporary Grenadier offerings, but not quite as good as Ral Partha, though some of the Martian Metal offerings in 25mm, such as the ‘Dragonslayers’ line, are actually pretty good. In any case, the standard cardboard counters are probably a better choice for regular game play, particularly when figures engage in HTH combat and so forth. Still, one cannot help but wonder what an appropriately scaled miniatures set, with an attention to detail comparable to Ral Partha, and based on artwork in various TFT related games, Microquests, etc., would have looked like...

Worthy of note is the fact that the 31 oz. silver dragon that was the subject of the Treasure of the Silver Dragon Microquest was cast by Martian Metals. It is not clear if this was a unique model, or if an existing mould for either the 7-hex dragon, or perhaps some other dragon figure was used. I've never seen a 7 hex dragon Microture, though I am pretty sure that is what would have been used. Two silver dragons were made, one of which was kept by Metagaming (i.e. Howard Thompson) and the other buried near the Sunspot, New Mexico solar observatory (and presumably still in the hands of its finder, Tom Davidson). It is likely that the Gold Unicorn was also sculpted and cast by Martian Metals, but this is only speculation. The fate of the latter is unknown; however, it is likely that Howard Thompson recovered it and, I suspect but cannot prove, probably sold or melted it for its gold content.

I know of only one photograph of the actual Silver Dragon, which I have reproduced below. It is taken from a news blurb in White Dwarf magazine (issue No. 23) mentioning the contest and the early finding of the treasure. And, no, apart from what is stated in the caption I know nothing of the two hotties in the picture...

As to the golden unicorn, there are a couple of Martian Metals figures that might have been used as a model for the actual figure:

  

Obviously, we will never know what the original looked like, which is too bad.
Also, sources (See Gypsy Comet's post referenced below on the TFT forums, and corroborated by a certain Leland R. Erickson) stated that Martian Metals was working on a set of Microtures for the Hymenoptera of Chitin:I. Mr. Erickson specifically stated that he saw pre-production figures for the Chitin I Microtures at Pacificon '82. These may well also have been useful for TFT, as those creatures are detailed in the Flora and Fauna of Cidri section of In the Labyrinth. However, the destruction of the Martian Metals factory put an end to this line of Microtures before it could be released (though, in any case, the cessation of operations at Metagaming would have put the kabosh on this project as well, even without the fire).

The TFT Microtures are rare;[1] they do not seem to come up very much at all on eBay and for those that do certain collectors are willing to pay beyond top dollar to obtain them.[2] Indeed, they seem fairly rare, and may not have been produced in very great quantity, though I do not have any production numbers to back that up.
Below are several pix, from various sources, showing photos of TFT Microtures in their packages:

Some close up pix of the unopened TFT Microture sets in my collection, specifically the Underearth Dwellers and Wizards:

Note that these next pictures may or may not be a 4-Hex TFT Microture dragon, since it appears identical to a similar 15mm scale dragon in the Dragon Slayers line:

Shown here is what I believe to be a One Hex Dragon: 

Here are several shots of loose TFT Microtures from various packages. Several of the pictures are courtesy of Robert Saint John on The Fantasy Trip Google+ community:

As noted above, Microtures were created for both O.G.R.E. and Rivets, the two “robot tank” games in the Metagaming product line. For the O.G.R.E. Microgame, the following Microtures were created:

OGR1         O.G.R.E. Mk V

OGR2         G.E.V.

OGR3         Heavy Tank

OGR4         Missile Tank

These miniatures were produced from 1979-1981 and were sculpted by Forrest Brown and Randy Hoffa. Production seems to have ceased sometime after Steve Jackson left Metagaming, taking O.G.R.E. with him. It is likely that the license was retained, but that Jackson later rescinded it and gave the contract to Ral Partha (I think - lemme know if I got that wrong). Below is a picture of an O.G.R.E. mini (a MkV, if I'm not mistaken):

For Rivets, the following line of “BOPPERS” (i.e. Battlefield Oriented Pre-Programmed Eradicator Robots) were marketed, also in 1/300 scale:

MM-8001   Rocket BOPPERS (4)

MM-8002   Jack BOPPERS (4)

MM-8003   Dive BOPPERS (2)

MM-8004   Tiny BOPPERS (4)

MM-8005   Big BOPPERS (4)

MM-8006   Light BOPPERS (12)

Below are pictures of assembled and painted miniatures along with an unopened package:

Martian Metals also produced miniatures for Traveller and Runequest (sculpted by Paul Jaquays, who also did some artwork for Metagaming and TSR) along with several lines of generic 15mm and 25mm fantasy minis for use with any system. Note that Martian Metals lost the Runequest miniatures license due to slow debut of their releases, and soon after the license for Traveller was lost, as well. Interestingly, Grenadier bought the Traveller line from Martian Metals, and received them not too long before the fire. It would seem that the fire only put the coup de gras on an already dying company. As a matter of purest speculation, it is to be wondered if the sudden destruction of Metagaming’s sole producer of miniatures contributed in some fashion to Thompson’s abrupt decision to go out of business, or at least the timing of it. The sequence of events does make one wonder, though I tend to think that the failure of Starleader: Assault! was a more likely catalyst, as outlined here.

References:

Different Worlds No. 28, Apr 1983 (“Gossip,” pg. 54)

Post “Re: (TFT) Hymenopteran do you use them?” on tft.brainiac.com/archive/0303/msg00019.html dated March 9, 2003 by “Gypsy Comet”

Space Gamer No. 20, Nov-Dec 1978

Space Gamer No. 23, May-Jun 1979

Space Gamer No. 24, Sep-Oct 1979 (ad on pg. 29)

Space Gamer No. 25, Nov-Dec 1979 (ad on pg. 25)

Space Gamer No. 33, Nov 1980 (“News & Plugs” p. 40)

Space Gamer No. 61, Mar 1983 (“Scanner” p. 28)

White Dwarf No. 23, Feb/Mar 1981. (“News” p. 25; picture of the Silver Dragon and the 'Meta-twins')

Appendix:

Known Martian Metals Sculptors and Artists

Forrest Brown (O.G.R.E.)

Randy Hoffa (O.G.R.E.)

Paul Jaquays (Runequest)

George Freeman (Dragonslayer)

Scott ---- (Dragonslayer)

Jim Zejedia (?) (Dragonslayer)

Mary Peralta (?) (Dragonslayer)

Steve Lortz (Dragonslayer)

Nieal Erickson (artist)

---

[1] At the least, if they do come up on eBay, the sellers do not know what they have and perhaps mislabel them. Not a surprise since, prior to the release of this article, there was no published information at all on this subject that I am currently aware of.

[2] Let me tell you all a story: in early March of 2007 I had bid on two TFT Microtures, sans packaging, that had come up out of the blue on eBay, a One-Hex Dragon and Four-Hex Dragon, both apparently complete with treasure chests and so forth (though I had to ask the seller about the accompanying items, since they weren’t originally listed). Checking my e-mails to see if I had won the first auction I found that I indeed had, however, the second auction (for the Four Hex Dragon) had been relisted and my bid cancelled. Checking the relisted item I found that it had sold with a “Buy it Now” for $100 (!!!). Going back through my messages more closely I found one from the seller, who told me that this collector had come out of the woodwork and was literally willing to pay not only $100 for that Four Hex Dragon, but was willing to pay me $100 for the One Hex Dragon I had won! While ultimately nothing ever came of this, it was a serious offer nonetheless. Definitely illustrates just how scarce these TFT Microtures are... I shudder to think what one of the boxed sets, in its original packaging, might fetch! ADDENDUM 7/21/2009: I just won two sealed packages of TFT Microtures. I paid a little over $150 for them - and that was only because I put down a $212.72 bid 30 seconds before auction end (there were several last second bids, including the one for $150. As expensive as they were, it was satisfying to stuff that bid down my adversary’s throat!

Gjermundbu Helmet reproduction.

Finally getting back to posting. Hurray! Here are pix and description of my latest headache of a project:

For me, a relatively fast turnaround project, started about a year ago and finished recently, with the exception of the strapping and suspension. I hope to have the latter complete in time for Scandinavian Faire in April.

This is an 85% or so accurate reconstruction, based upon all currently available information. There were two noticeable details I omitted, namely the overlap at the corners of the ocular guard due to the original having been made with separate cheekbone guards (I made mine erroneously in one piece, only learning after completion that it was inaccurate) and the hollowed “ribs” of the frame, which I cheated and simply made from thick steel bar. Otherwise, I incorporated inlay on the ocular as was found on the original, a feature almost always missing in most reproductions, due to the use of too thin a material. I also made a special fluting tool to make the flute at the top of the browband, just below the rivets on the infill panels.

Apart from the inaccuracies noted above, my reproduction is fairly close to the original otherwise. The ocular is a close match to the original in terms of thickness, being made from ⅛” thick mild steel plate, and the browband and “under-ribs” (for lack of a better term) are made from 14 gauge. The inaccurate “outer-ribs” use ⅛” thick bars rather than the thin, deeply dished ribs of the original, but at least capture the spirit of the original construction. The infill panels are 18 or 20 gauge thickness (I don't remember which). I used 6mm riveted and solid rings for the aventail. This feature I believe existed on the original helmet but is no longer extant, having been detached prior to burial. The rings are similar in size to those found in the burial with the helmet. Note the suspension method for the aventail, derived from a few slightly larger rings directly attached to the browband. It is my firm belief that the aventail was NOT directly attached to the browband, but rather used a simplified version of the suspension band seen on, for example, the Coppergate and Valsgärde 8 helmets. In those examples, the mail hangs from a wire that is run through a channel with notches to hold it in place. In this case the channel is replaced by the mail rings attached to the rims.

References: “Gjermundbufunnet” is the authoritative reference for this helm, and “The Anglian Helmet from Coppergate” has some supplemental data as well. More accessible references include any of the Osprey books pertaining to Vikings, along with many general works on Viking history.

Long time no post

Rumours to the contrary, I am not dead (well, not yet, anyway). Been busy with work, school, and children. However, the semester is ending tomorrow, so that will be one time suck out of the way. So here's what's coming up in terms of posts:
- How Tollenkar's Lair could have been improved
- Restored covers for Soldier City: Shaylle and Intrigue in Plaize
- New AD&D (and maybe stats for TFT as well) monster
- Current projects: Gjermundbu helmet and 13th century maille coif
- How TSR/Gygax could have interwoven their games


... and much more. Stay tuned!

I wuz plagiarised by a Publisher!!!

[As can be seen in the comments section to this post, the author of the book got in touch with me - turns out we're both victims here, thanks to the publisher. So I've rewritten both my Amazon review and some parts of this blog post to reflect what actually happened.]

Well, not quite the right word, but I basically had some of my intellectual property swiped without permission (which I probably would have granted, had I been asked).
Some history: back in December of last year I took a picture of three daggers in my collection, one of which I hand made myself. I eventually uploaded this picture to Wikimedia on February 8th, 2014 (according to the change page log on Wiki). The picture can be seen here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagger
It is about halfway down the page, in the sub section on Mediaeval daggers. I put it in to better illustrate the section, and I give explicit details in the photo description as to what the reproductions were based on and who made them. Now, before going further let me post the verbatim of the Creative Commons license on Wiki that applies to this photo:

"You are free:

• to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
• to remix – to adapt the work

Under the following conditions:

• attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
• share alike – If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one."

Note well that one must attribute the work, and that one must also share alike. While a rational human would interpret that latter to mean that one could not take something that was made available for free and turn it around and use it in a for profit work, that is not how the Publisher interpreted it, alas...
Some months ago I bought a book on the bargain table at Barnes & Noble entitled "Knives, Daggers & Hand-Combat Tools" which can be seen here on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Daggers-Hand-Combat-Illustrated-History-Weapons/dp/174363059X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1404410862&sr=1-1&keywords=Daggers
It seemed like a well illustrated, if overly broad, treatment of the subject, but I had glanced quickly through it and figured it would be a nice add to my library. All well and good but imagine my surprise when I turned to page 47 and saw this:

If you compare with my picture on Wikipedia, you can see immediately that the Publisher took my picture, edited it (rather nicely, though, I will say) and then used it to illustrate their book which they now sell for a profit.

Now, there is a page at the end of the book with the following note: "Unless otherwise noted, all silhouetted weaponry  images are from the Berman Museum of World History, Anniston, Alabama, and photographed by f-stop fitzgerald and Jonathan Conklin Photography, Inc., with the exception of the following:" They then list a bunch of photo credits from various sources. Nowhere, however, do the Publishers acknowledge the source of the photo with my daggers, let alone who made the reproductions (which I clearly attribute in my blurb on Wikipedia describing the picture).


As an aside I saw a few other pictures that they got out of Wikipedia, as well, for their book. Thing of it is, if the Publishers had simply asked I probably would have given permission to use freely (provided they credited me; additionally, though not strictly necessary, a free copy of the book would have been a most kind gesture of "thanks"...). Honestly I was a bit flattered that they considered my picture (and, by extension, the dagger I made) to be worthy of inclusion in his book. But the Publisher really dropped the ball here, and will make me rethink how I distribute pix of my work in the future.


Interestingly, had the Publisher worked with me, I could have provided more and better pictures of reproduction daggers in my collection, that would have been even easier to edit and use (for example, I could have taken good closeups of the pommel, etc., that they had to do a photo edit on from the base picture, reducing the quality).


Another related problem I have with some of the illustrations that are in this book, where they are photos of modern reproductions, is that the makers are not credited by the Publisher. This has nothing to do with copyright, but rather with letting the makers get a bit of advertising - I'm sure some folks look at some of these reproductions and think "I'd like one". Would be nice to know where to go...


One detail that got tripped up is that they took a photo of a reproduction Landsknecht dagger from Arms & Armor to illustrate the type. However, while they do state it is a reproduction, they claim it is based on an example from the Solingen Blade Museum in Germany. This is wrong; the reproduction in question is conjecture based on what a companion dagger might look like based on the extant example of a Katzbalger sword from said museum - no such dagger, as such, actually exists. While it is a plausible reconstruction, there is no direct example.
Many thanks to the author for clarifying the situation with me. He confided that he was so concerned about some of the issues he had seen pre-publishing that he wanted his name taken off and a pseudonym used instead, but the Publisher didn't even do that! Sad state of affairs all around. While I've always been dimly aware that authors get "p'wnd" to some degree, I had no idea it was this bad.
As noted, I've updated my Amazon review accordingly. Knowing what I know now I'd say this is actually worth getting, as there are some interesting photos in it, not the least being the daggers out of my collection... :-)

On Combat in D&D and Melee – Perceptions and Reality

A while back I ran into this screed by an old wargamer who calls himself T. Shiels that used to be at this website (http://www.thortrains.net/armymen/index.html) but no longer seems to be extant. In spite of its apparent disappearance, I feel compelled to address it, since it has often been cited particularly in conjunction with so called “Old School” gaming forums as a basis for justifying not having any differentiation between weapon types – a silly proposition but one that gets traction from diatribes such as these:

"After my Army tour, I lived a bit too wild and got involved in too many scary episodes. It seemed like wasted talent, but when rewriting wargame rules it came to work for me. There is a way people fight, and it should be reflected in games. My problem with re-enactors is that their mock fights are bound by rules for safety and fairness. In a real situation where bodily harm is likely and safety rules do not exist, it gets very different...

Chainmail came up short. I figured that the writers had never been in so much as a fistfight, never mind a brawl with polearms and axes. I had been in a couple of brawls that involved bats, barstools and other "field expedient" medieval weaponry....”

The first flaw in this writer’s reasoning that I would hasten to point out is that “bats” and “barstools” are NOT medieval weapons! Unless that “bat” has iron spikes radiating out of the end, it is NOT the same as a mace or morningstar. So while it is no doubt true that Gygax, etc., had never been in a “brawl with polearms and axes”, it is also equally true that the writer has absolutely no relevant experience in this regard, either...

{Parenthetically I will grant that Gygax’s research with regards to medieval armaments was quite flawed, relying on woefully out of date and, in general, poor quality scholarship; much of his “information” on poll arms was laughably wrong, and “banded mail” was nothing more than a Victorian Era hallucination.}


Put another way, being in a few bar fights does not a master of medieval combat make...

For the record, barroom brawls are really not the same as medieval battlefield situations – and it is extraordinarily disingenuous to suggest otherwise. In the former, folks are really generally only trying to beat the stuffing out of one another, not kill. There is a difference. Barring extreme intoxication and rage, most people are at least dimly aware that actually killing (or even seriously trying) to kill outright someone can get you in very serious trouble with the authorities, to include life imprisonment or even the death penalty. Thus, there actually IS a fair amount of restraint being employed, even if it is not obvious to the casual observer...

But there is something else: “field expedient” medieval weaponry as defined by the Writer are in no way, shape, or form the same as actual medieval weaponry, for the simple reason that the latter are purposefully designed to KILL AND MAIM, while the former are not. “Field expedient” implements lack the balance, mass distribution, cutting edges, etc. that only actual weapons possess. To suggest that a bar stool is functionally the same as a poll axe in a fight requires serious overuse and abuse of psychotropic substances to even remotely take seriously...

“One thing we realized was that the writers of "Chainmail" had gotten too interested in weapons. Their rules gave certain implements a distinct advantage in hand-to-hand, man-to-man combat. The morningstar, mace, two-handed axe and two-handed sword were overwhelming, while the spear and sword came up short. In actual accounts of medieval close combat, the spear was favored. Dismounted French knights preferred to make spears of their lances than depend on maces or broad axes. The favorite battlefield weapon of the Samurai was a spear. The sword only came into play in situations where the spear was impractical. So why would "Chainmal" [sic] regard a spear as a weak weapon? Obviously, the writers were impressed with their idea of busting out armor. As with tanks, it is not armor penetration alone that makes a kill. One thing I learned from jujitsu, the Army and some other arcane studies (never mind!) was that weapon skill was personal. A warrior had his preferences, so a man who was good with, say, a mace would be the equal of a man who was skilled with the hand axe. The weapon was not as important as the man behind it. We dropped the idea of adding or subtracting for each type of weapon.”

For starters, if one actually reads and plays the Chainmail rules correctly, the spear is not really as marginal as it appears – plainly the Writer was ignoring the weapon’s length, and should have spent some time educating himself on the actual ruleset better. Following the rules the spear actually performs better than they believe in Chainmail.

It is true that the spear is a very prolific weapon on virtually all battlefields, even into this century if one counts the bayonet mounted on the end of a rifle. However, what works in mass combat is not necessarily the best solution for one on one combat. Also, the Writer conveniently ignores the issue of cost – a spear is much cheaper than a sword, which by itself could be a good explanation as to why spears were common. His statement about the French knights “preferring” their cut down lances is severely distorted, and not really true – the use of cut down lances was a tactical expedient to deal with spear or poll axe armed infantry. With regards to “preference” I’m quite sure the French knights “preferred” to overrun hapless peasant levies with full length lances and swords whilst on horseback...

I agree with Shiels that the man is more important than the weapon – however, one cannot logically leap to the conclusion that the weapon is irrelevant! I also agree that armor penetration alone does not make a “kill” but being unable to penetrate it effectively sure limits your options, don’t you think? Look at it this way, having an inferior weapon simply diminishes one’s opportunities to score an effective “kill.” For a real world example, consider using a sword against a fully plate armored foe. Most blows will be entirely ineffectual; only very precise hits, as illustrated below from the cover of a book on Medieval swordsmanship, are likely to cause a kill. Anything else will be shrugged off altogether. Contrast this with say a halberd or poll axe, which can perform precise stabbing blows as noted previous, but also have the mass to damage armor, inflict blunt trauma, etc. even through the otherwise impenetrable plate. Thus, the latter has more opportunities to be combat effective, and is thus in this manner “superior.”

Another example: during WWII freshly trained American pilots, equipped with F4U Corsair fighter planes, were able to achieve an overall favorable kill ratio over more experienced Japanese piloting the A6M “Zero” during the Solomon Islands campaign in 1943. Why? Not because our pilots came out of training as Zen Masters, but rather because the Corsair was an objectively superior aircraft in virtually all respects – significantly faster, better rate of climb, better armed, and much better protected. While the Japanese (at this stage of the war) were equal or even better pilots, they could not compete as well given the deficiencies of their “weapon.” It was much easier for a Corsair pilot to get a Zero into a favorable “kill” position, and much harder for the Jap pilot to orchestrate the reverse[i] – and even when he did, our boys had an easy way out: open up the throttle and push the nose down and power dive out of the situation.

As an aside, I am not really sure what to make of the author’s claims to expertise. He states he was in the Army, but does not give his MOS. Simply being in the Army does not make one a master at arms any more than being in the Air Force automatically makes you an ace fighter pilot. For all I know, Shiels was a cook. His claims of studying Jujitsu are more relevant, since this martial art form focuses on unarmed combat against armed and armored adversaries, and is derived from early Japanese battlefield close quarter techniques (which, by the by, are very similar to European techniques, employed in the same circumstances). Of course, simply “studying” jujitsu for a few weeks does not convey mastery, either, and it is not clear how much effort was actually placed into learning this martial art form. As for “arcane” studies, I have no insight, nor do I understand the relevance. My point in bringing this up is that, while I affirm that Shiels likely does have some basis for his views, they are shallow and limited and should not be considered authoritative by any means.

At this point the astute reader will no doubt want to know what my qualifications are. A fair enough question! Well, for starters I have taken Tae Kwon Do (achieved green belt, which in my school was two notches above beginning white belt), and have some minor experience in Western Martial Arts, mostly in SCA and some drills I have done on my own following examples in various period fighting manuals and modern distillations of such. When I was in the Air Force I took Foreign Weapons Familiarization classes at Ft. Irwin (a “Re-Blueing” exercise to remind us folks at LAAFB – a.k.a. “Hollywood Air Force” that there was a real military out there that broke things and killed people). Most of my knowledge, though, is either scholarly and/or based upon personal reconstructions of the artifacts, ranging from helmets, to armour, to swords and daggers, and even to flails and axes. In terms of research, I am not only extremely well versed in very detailed knowledge about the artifacts themselves, but also their use and effectiveness. For example, I have read works such as “Blood Red Roses” which is a forensic study of injuries found on skeletal remains from the Battle of Towton, and have also read a lot of materials pertaining to firearm effectiveness, including military reports from various wars (mostly WWII and Korea). I have also perused in great detail original medieval and renaissance “Fechtbücher” (“fighting manuals”) that clearly show the various martial techniques of the period, armed and unarmed. I may not know everything, but I know quite a bit –certainly much more than Shiels – and I consider myself to be vastly more qualified to speak to this matter, even if I’ve never been in a bar room brawl or studied jujitsu…

Returning to Mr. Shiels pontifications:

“A man going into a fight will take the weapon with which he is most secure. This goes for everything from bar room brawling to Indian raids. A man who is good with a chain will take it. The fellow who prefers a club won't want a chain. Though outsiders may view the chain as more effective because of its appearance and weight, you can be sure that a ghood [sic] club man will be equally effective with his choice of weapon. All the "Chainmail" weapon rule did was fuel the fires of those with a fascination for odd medieval fighting instruments.”

So, according to Shiels weapons are simply a fancy security blanket, such as what Linus carries? Not at all true, and I am not sure where such a distorted viewpoint comes from. As I’ve already explained, bar room brawls are emphatically NOT the same as any sort of actual warfare, whether Indian raids, Medieval battles, or Special Forces skirmishes, and it is as stupid as it is ridiculous to compare the two. And as an “outsider” I will let the laws of physics decide whether a chain or club is objectively better for pounding someone. Finally, regarding those “odd medieval fighting instruments” the reason they seem odd is because they are precision tools, designed to deal with specific battlefield threats. It is no different than when you build a house – I use a hammer to pound nails, a screwdriver to drive screws, a saw to cut boards, etc. I would *not* use a hammer to cut a board, or a saw to pound nails – would you? Likewise, some circumstances call for a sword vs. a poll axe, and the like. Anyone who thinks that weapon choice is a matter of psychological “security” plainly does not comprehend the subject at all.

“Another thing about weapons was environment. A chain is not very good when fighting in water or in thick brush. You need room to swing it. A club is fine provided you have room to swing it. In close quarters, a thrusting weapon would be better. Fighting in a tight hallway, swinging weapons are at a disadvantage. “

This is a perfectly valid observation, but the correct way to handle this is to provide a rule or two for these special circumstances, rather than leaping irrationally to the conclusion that type of weapon does not matter at all.

“Hand-held weapons drop an enemy either by impact / concussion or cutting. A concussive weapon tends to be more effective in a very close fight. A sword, though it cuts, also acts as an iron bar. An axe is like a sharp truncheon. Pole weapons give that extra second or two to drop the enemy, hence most are for cutting. Though a cut is more likely to be fatal, it is less likely to drop an enemy instantly. Cuts take a few seconds more than impact...”


It is this statement by Shiels that makes me question his intelligence. Certainly he proves his uttermost ignorance on the matter. Literally every statement in the previous paragraph is wrong, either partially or completely. Point by point:

(1) “Hand-held weapons drop an enemy either by impact / concussion or cutting.” Obviously false on its face – has he never heard of stabbing someone? But it is clinically inaccurate as well. One “drops an enemy” by means of disrupting internal organ function or blood loss, which is achieved by concussive, cutting, or stabbing blows. I confess to being a bit pedantic, but if one is going to make the sweeping sorts of generalizations that Shiels has, one might at least try to be factually correct.

(2) “A concussive weapon tends to be more effective in a very close fight.” Really? Who says? What is meant by the terms “effective” or “close fight”? Actually, I would argue that in a very close (within grappling distance fight, which is how I would interpret the term “close fight”) I would submit that a dagger is most effective, not a club or mace, because the latter requires more room to swing. Stabbing in close quarters with a dagger is a devastating technique, documented quite well in period sources, which Shiels has plainly never heard of, let alone studied.

(3) “A sword, though it cuts, also acts as an iron bar.” Uhhhhh, no, swords do not act as iron bars. I am sorely tempted to fetch one of my finer Albion long swords, and an actual iron bar out of my workshop (sword blade raw material, actually) and demonstrate upon Mr. Shiels person the distinct difference between the two, not just in handling capability but wounding capacity as well… an iron bar is NOT going to cut someone in half, or snip off a limb – but a good sword will do exactly that. It should also be pointed out that most swords can stab/thrust as well, a rather obvious thing to not understand.

(4) “An axe is like a sharp truncheon.” All right, this is probably the least incorrect statement in this sorry bunch, but it’s still quite inaccurate. Want to understand why? Get a baseball bat, “sharpen” it to have some sort of edge, and then go ahead and try to chop down a tree with it. Compare with using an axe for the same task. Let me know which works better…

(5) “Pole weapons give that extra second or two to drop the enemy, hence most are for cutting.” This statement is barely comprehensible. An extra second or two? How does one know this? Did Mr. Shiels time one being used in a fight? I hardly think so. I think the point he is struggling to convey is that the length of the weapon allows you to strike at a foe before they can get within range to strike at you. Technically, this is happening in fractions of a second, not a “second or two”, but in outline is kind- sorta-partially correct. Really it gives you a “first strike” opportunity, nothing more. And poll arms are primarily for stabbing, not cutting, though as a secondary attack capability most do indeed have an axe blade (an exception would be the bec de corbin, which has a pronged hammer face backed with a beak like spike).

(6) And finally, this gem: “Though a cut is more likely to be fatal, it is less likely to drop an enemy instantly. Cuts take a few seconds more than impact...” Utterly wrong. Stabs are more likely to be (eventually) fatal, but less likely to drop someone instantly than a cut, which in turn is more likely to be effective than concussive blow. While a stab may eventually prove fatal, whether through exsanguination or infection, it is unlikely to do so in a manner timely enough to suit the one doing the stabbing. Even a stab to the heart means there is still enough blood pressure in the brain to allow for volitional action on the part of the victim; what was termed in the Old West as “A dead man’s 15 seconds.” It was not unheard of for duelists using rapiers or small swords to mortally wound one another, with one stabbing the other but then not getting out of range quick enough to avoid being fatally stabbed in return. Hence why most swords (with the exception of specialty anti-armour tools such as estocs) had cutting edges, which can deliver a severe enough shearing cut that can take off a limb (or a head) and end the fight on the spot – something a stab can only rarely do. Blunt weapons tend to be least effective in this regard, but are very useful since their mass gives them some effect against heavy armour, and they have the additional advantage of not getting stuck in their targets – a problem with stabs and even occasionally with cuts.

Bottom line: when one cuts through the layers of B.S. and examines the statements logically, one finds that Shiels is really not all that knowledgeable. The few very good points made do not support the sweeping conclusions he leaps to, and are in any case overwhelmed by the sheer amount of ignorant nonsense and garbage he puts out. In the end it is best to disregard Shiels’ screed, as it is mostly wrong.

One tangential point that comes out from this discussion is that one can sometimes make a game combat system both more realistic AND more streamlined by understanding the factual reality that is being modeled. Knowing that most folks do not instantly die when struck means that one need not obsess too much with following a strict initiative order. The rules given in Melee and Advanced Melee, with the fixation that “nothing happens simultaneously” are actually wrong-headed; the simplification introduced in the “Fast Rules” section presented in Advanced Melee (and also in Dragons of Underearth) that gets rid of attacking in adjDX order is really a very good idea, that not only speeds up play dramatically but is in fact more realistic. Such a deal!

---

[i] Corsair ace 2^nd Lieutenant Kenneth Walsh explained why: “I learned quickly that altitude was paramount. Whoever had altitude dictated the terms of the battle, and there was nothing a Zero pilot could do to change that — we had him [N.B.: because of the Corsair’s superior rate of climb]. The F4U could outperform a Zero in every aspect except slow speed manoeuvrability and slow speed rate of climb. Therefore you avoided getting slow when combating a Zero. It took time but eventually we developed tactics and deployed them very effectively... There were times, however, that I tangled with a Zero at slow speed, one on one. In these instances I considered myself fortunate to survive a battle.