Pete Nash

Took me little over a second for each one. Divide each one by ten, double the result, then round up or down as appropriate. Not a problem, for me at least...

Don't worry, one way or another I will be writing a Heroic Greece supplement at some point in the future. I can't make any promises about what system/publisher yet though. I have a bit of work for Moon Design to do first.

There's nothing in the Rome book about this, since I've never heard of such a thing. On the face of it the whole idea is alien to Republican sensibilities, but I'm interested where you originally read about it.

He obviously didn't read it very carefully...

Bah humbug.... and God Jul too!

That's a difficult one to answer clearly. Yes, the intended location can change as a result of circumstance, but generally that its because I manufactured the circumstance to begin with or had anticipated it and am already targeting the hole I know is going to open for me. When unexpected things happen, such as my opponent slipping, fumbling or doing something radically unusual (always fear novice fighters), then I am often not in a position to take advantage of it, because my weapon will be in the wrong place with the wrong trajectory to get across or back to the opened target. By the time I can respond, the hole has closed up again and the tactical situation changed. For example, every once in a while someone resurrects a silly trick shot which requires spinning 360 degrees to throw a blow at the other side of the body. It can be done fast, even in armour, but relies more on surprise than anything else to work. In effect you present your undefended back to the opponent whilst you spin around. The first few times it was used against me I fell for it and although I could see a completely open target, simply could not take advantage in time before the opponent caught me in the head. Nowadays I recognise the preparatory footwork and body setup, so that I can decide to tap them gently in the back of the head before they can complete the move. I don't know if that answers your original question. It would be much simpler if I could physically demonstrate the wide range of options available from any position, where the decision tree starts to kick in and why I select a specific branch, at each stage of my opponent's reaction.

A good question, but no. It was completely free-form fighting. Certainly they could have launched a wild flurry of blows, but it would have been pointless. That's not how real fighting works. You dare not throw wasteful shots since it drains energy, builds up excessive heat, significantly reduces the power of the blows (since you are concentrating on speed and not committing the blade to go through the targeted limb or location), opens up huge gaps in your defence and prevents you from utilising your skill/technique to create an advantage over your opponent. Against inexperienced opponents you might get away with it, but against anyone else it is tantamount to suicide.

I didn't specifically time each bout, but none would have been more than 10 seconds at the most.

No, not usually. Most of the competent fighters are roughly accurate to within 10-15cm, and usually blows are striking on the deflecting surfaces of the armour. The thing is they are not deliberately aiming for soft spots or gaps, so for them it is more incidental than anything else. The highest skilled fighters are very surgical in their accuracy, and can use gaps and openings of down to about 5cm or so. I could strike for points such as inner elbow or biceps, fingers, face, throat, armpit and groin, but its not nice to do since we're not actively trying to break each other. This becomes doubly true if using steel weapons during a free-form bout as fractures become significant risks. However, I'd be the first to admit I've often used the latter two targets to 'remind' the occasional fighter who was being a bit brutal or less-than-chivalrous to play a bit nicer. So yes, it can be done fairly consistently, but mainly when you have a skill advantage over your opponent. The more evenly matched you are with your foe, the more difficult it is to access those weaker points. As an aside, when fighting in a non-SCA context then I can use unarmed techniques alongside the weapon. This allows me to initiate binds and presses which, if I were to continue them through to their conclusion, could easily break a limb, despite the fact we are heavily armoured. So technically you can 'bypass' armour in a number of different ways.

Okay I have the results from the today's practice. What I did was set up a series of single combats. The fighters ranged from a young guy who has only been fighting one month, to a nearly 50 year old veteran of high competence. The pairings were organised so that a diversity of opposing skills were represented. Several weapon forms were used, longsword, sword and shield, or sword and buckler. These too were mixed and matched to provoke a wide range of test circumstances. To prevent distracting them (thus affecting their bouts), each fighter was assigned an observer who simply counted how many attacks their guy threw. I acted as the record keeper and observer of where shots were actually striking. The 'defeated' fighter had to call out where the blow had landed so that the attacker could confirm that the location struck was indeed where they had been aiming. Over 15 matches there were in total 109 attacks made, averaging out at 7.26 shots per bout - or 3.6 shots per combatant - before a 'kill' occurred. Of all those attacks only one, the very last, was regarded as a 'misplaced' hit. This occurred when a blow aimed at the upper inner thigh accidentally stuck the opponent in the groin when the recipient shifted his leg slightly. Sadly the resulting uncontrollable hilarity inspired by the 'fatal' shot prevented further continuation of the test. Happily the gentleman in question recovered in time, but in hindsight pointed out that although he had been struck in a technically different anatomical region, the fact that his foe had been aiming only 5cm lower made it a bit of a grey area on whether it should count as a miss-hit. However, I deemed it was worthy of consideration so included it in this report. During the proceeding (and longer) tournament using the same full contact full force rules, there was in fact only two arm shots, but both of these had been intended, rather than accidental interpositions. In conclusion the incidence of accidentally striking an unintended location (at that particular practice) proved to be less that one in a hundred. Unfortunately I didn't have enough people to keep track of a full skirmish. I'll have to think about setting one up where I can still get accurate data from independent observers. I hope that helps!

This is an area where it is difficult to maintain a simplified model, since a lot depends on the range you are throwing/shooting at. Within 10m any half way decent archer can pick precisely where they want an arrow to hit. Up to 20m a highly skilled archer can still do it. Over that it becomes more a question of being able to hit the target in the first place. In hindsight it might have been more realistic to split the location tables into swung and thrust/missile. However that would have added a bit more overhead and created knock-on effects for all the creature hit location tables. I should have included a more severe Range penalty table, which would have partially solved the verisimilitude problem. Unfortunately it never occurred to Loz or I, but never mind. The simple version still works fine for most situations.

Gladly. I can't think of one in my library that springs to mind, but most of those are from older authors who wrote from an intellectual point of view and not from physical recreation. I'd suggest reading the Ancient Warfare magazine whose scholarship is now extremely good and encourages publication of more modern theories. Nowadays I base my conjectures on a combination of primary sources, battlefield pathology reports, historical development of armour and of course my personal experience of reenactment and armoured battles. For example, as a youth I always wondered why Roman legionaries (save centurions) never wore armour on the legs or arms whist gladiators did, and why they armed with a gladius - as it messed with recreating them as serious opponents in my RQ2 and RQ3 historical games. It wasn't until I fought in close order formation that it made sense and I began to understand descriptions by contemporary authors. They are armoured for the battlefield and not personal combat. It makes a huge difference.

Chances are that against anyone with a decent amount of training they probably won't be able to hit them in the first place. Most of these unanticipated secondary targets are generally from from weapon snarls or weapon/shield deflections, or are trajectory interceptions which are too early or late in the blow to have any significant force in them. Thus in the majority of cases I would personally interpret them as still successful parries (in the case of the former) or misses by the attacker (in the case of the latter). It does depend on weapon type however, which can have an affect on the initial line of attack and whether it can still inflict damage when it hits. For example, a partially deflected great weapon is likely to still have sufficient force to hurt even if parried by a sidesword or buckler. A situation which is covered in the RAW. However its another interesting question. I still think it'll be less than one thrown shot in a hundred, but I tell you what. I have a couple of young novices who've started training in the last couple of months. I'll actually do a count of how many times it occurs as they fight, and we'll see how often it occurs empirically against a range of opponents. Next one is this coming Sunday if you don't mind waiting that long for an experiment?

Yes, but it happens very, very rarely. The RAW can model this situation in several ways. I might have chosen Impale or some other option instead of Choose Location... Or the defender may have won the CM and used Redirect Blow against my bigger weapon. Not that it really matters. Those who really dislike the ease of Choose Location are more than welcome to turn it into a Critical CM if it helps their verisimilitude or game balance.

That is a very good question. Long post follows... Firstly you need to remember in real life combat against competent opponents is dangerous. Its not sparring down at the fencing club or a bit of light entertainment on the big screen. Frequently it doesn't last beyond a handful of seconds unless it is ceremonial or restricted by cultural convention. It is short. brutal and designed to incapacitate ASAP and does this because you can easily target a specific location or take your foe to the ground, etc. With that in mind you then need to look at the average incidence of combat in historical societies. In general, except for violent crime (normally restricted to poverty or urban living) few people ever see combat except for war. Even war is either limited to specific social classes (in ancient societies) or is irregular, becoming increasingly infrequent as history progresses. Whilst PCs frequently solve problems with inordinate amounts of lethal violence, the same is not true in the real world. Most cultures aren't pastiches of wild west lawlessness. There are social conventions which restrict combat, punishing attacks, wounding, kin-slaying and so on. Those that act in a psychopathic manner are ultimately punished or exiled by society. Most folks were, and are, honestly scared of losing their life. Very few are ever willing to take it to the armed level, preferring negotiation or capitulation to settle problems. Even if violence breaks out, most people won't kill their opponent. Not only does it bring social stigma, but it might also cause trouble depending on the law of that culture. Another aspect of most historical cultures is that very few people actually walk around heavily armed. Most are unarmed or have a knife or impromptu weapon at most. An armed society is not a polite society - its a society where bullying thrives and duelling etiquette begins to form. From the Vikings to 17th C French fops, the same cycle occurs. Those who partake in armed intimidation and those who stand up to it, generally end up maimed or dead in relatively short order. Very few duellists who survived their combat ever continued a to pursue a career of such fights. Just like in RQ combat, unless you are significantly more skilled than your opponent, its just a matter of time... So what does this ultimately mean for Historical Campaigns? Combat is rare and should probably be reserved for climatic conclusions. When combat does occur it is frightening and exciting for the players. Depending on the culture and situation, the fight does not need to end in death, although maiming or accidental fatality are always a possibility. There are a lot of issues involved here. The fact that these early civilisations tried to protect their head and torso with armour indicates how easy it is to strike at those locations, even if shields are being used. In close formation battles however, limbs are remarkably difficult to strike. For example its nearly impossible to hit at the enemy's legs - if you are using a spear you are risking losing (control of) the weapon as the two side close, and if you have a sword then there is no way to cut at anything below the waist once the lines engage. This same 'press' makes swinging at arms difficult too, since there are a lot of other weapons in the air snagging your swing. Shield arms are near invulnerable due to the tightness of the situation. When you consider a thrusting weapon, then realistically hitting a moving arm is a matter of luck and its much better to aim at the static head and torso. I could have added rules for such things into MRQ2, but I didn't think it was worth the added level of complication and to be honest most PCs don't normally fight in close order battlefield formation anyway. Well, that's why most battles end up with one side routing, often before battle is even engaged. Most historical battles have very low casualty figures because they were aware of the risk, didn't want to die and ran away. It also depends on the available weapons too, see my point above. Choose Location loses a lot of its bite the smaller the weapon damage involved. Quite a long time! Not only would his very high skill prevent him from taking damage - because he would be significantly reducing his opponent's attack skill and almost always succeeding his parry - but there's also that little issue of having a constant divine Shield 12 protecting him, thanks to his mother's paranoia. Actually there is. There's the defensive CM of Redirect Blow allowing the defender to choose where the blow will land on him. I do recommend trying combat out using the RAW first and seeing what happens. Remember too that defeat does not have to equate to death, so Choose Location can be a very useful way to win a fight without needing to kill, which allows a more mature and/or realistic style of play. Choose Location doesn't have to be a story killer. Its not the best CM by any means, and it often adds to the players enjoyment.

This is not LARP fighting. If you failed to parry it means you weren't able to guard against the incoming blow. Your opponent has out-manoeuvred you and your defence. However, if you want to offer an in-game choice of holding the shield static over one location then I don't see any problem with that. The location is guaranteed safe in exchange for not getting a parry - since that's effectively what you are doing. I tell you what Phil. You bring a couple of swords and shields to the next con I'm at and I'll happily show you how to do it. Bring a helmet too and I'll even prove I can still strike the head with more than sufficient force... As I said on the other forum I think your player's lack of imagination is a real shame. If you don't want them to repetitively use Choose Location then lead by example and take their PCs apart with enemies using combinations of other more useful CMs. Once they see what can be done they will probably want to start milking the other options for all they're worth.

This is exactly my experience with playing RQ for the last quarter century. No PC ever goes for a tactical shot because you cannot do it without significantly reducing your chance to hit, which in a game as deadly as RQ, is a foolhardy gamble. This however leads to stagnant, often tedious combats. For MRQ2 I looked at the way I personally fight in real life and came up with a rules set which more accurately modelled the way weapon fighting really works from my POV - at least amongst those of competent skill and above. In fights between skilled foes, combat is rarely just standing off and exchanging blows - that situation is a classic example of novice/part-time combatants or sport fighting. A true martial art emphasises a very brief exchange where almost every attack is combined with a manoeuvre to place you in a situation where you trip, grip, pin, disarm, bypass or perform an unarmed attack... and every defence is countering these manoeuvres whilst enforcing others. I.e. its inherent in every attack (and defence) that the attacker is trying to do something tactical. Just look at any of the Combat Manuals from the late Medieval / early Renaissance. Those illustrated exchanges are teaching precisely these type of techniques, and even the same technique several times with different results depending on what the opponent does. That is why MRQ2 has no penalties for attempting such things. Rosen is close to expounding what an MRQ2 combat skill really means. Its not just the % chance of swinging my weapon accurately. Its also how I position myself to command the better range, when I time my blow to draw or bypass his block, when I step off line to open up an angle, how well I can read my opponent's intention, my ability to obfuscate my own intention, body language psychology, how convincing my feints are, and so on. More simply summed up, my combat skill is my ability to gain an advantage during combat. If I get the upper hand then I can do something more technical than simply striking or warding my opponent. For example, when I fight a shieldman I often start by throwing a deliberate shot at my opponents face whilst simultaneously taking a closing step to reach my preferred range. Yet whether I allow the blow to connect or not depends on how he reacts. If he fails to read my blow and moves the shield too late then I cleanly strike him in the face - game over. But if he puts himself on the back foot whilst covering his face I may hold back the blow and take a second passing step off-line and have a clean shot at another target, or advance my shield to pin his, or allow my blow to land on his shield whilst I take a second step to place my foot behind his leading instep in preparation for tripping him prone. Maybe he instead fires off a blind panic counterblow as soon as I begin my original blow - I might redirect my step and face-shot to hammer his weapon forearm instead, or use my own shield to counterstrike his weapon attempting to disarm, or step deeper than intended to pre-emptively pin his weapon arm. It is very fluid. So my initial intent was a face shot, but a lot of options open up as soon as I begin to move. Thus my original plan is often modified mid-exchange to utilise any advantage I gain from having the superior positioning, timing, control, insight, subtlety et al. Off course if my opponent remains oblivious, then I'll go through with my original intent - but that becomes increasingly infrequent as I face opponents more closely matching my own skill and very rare if facing someone of superior skill to my own. So post-roll selection of CMs is not just to ease game flow, it does actually reflect what I do in combat also.

Those still happen in MRQ2, specifically when you gain a CM and don't use it to Choose Location. Although picking where to hit sounds like something you'd always do, the best combat manoeuvre often changes according to the weapon types, opponent's armour, magic, current tactical situation, the foe's skill, how well you rolled and the ultimate objective of the PC. Stuns, Trips, Disarms and even Break Weapon can be a much faster path to victory than choosing to hit a foe in the head three times running.

Combat Styles have been added, as have love/hate passion rules, and a few other minor things in Char Gen. The expanded magic system is not default MRQ2 magic. Its still the original bespoke system we wrote to emulate the Elric saga, I.e. the original vesion we did for Elric MRQ1, but with all the bells and whistles which had been previously hived off and placed into Magic of the Young Kingdoms, slightly tweaked to fix some tiny flaws. The major change to Elric MRQ2 is that the RQ game mechanics have been completely removed from the book. It is intended you buy MRQ2 to play it. Loz has filled this extra space with extra cultural details (yes, the UE is covered), expanded magic back to its intended length, added extra creatures and NPCs etc. All in all its a far more rounded and detailed settings book now. Is that clearer? Loz obviously could give a more detailed response but I think he's very busy at the moment.

I was refering to the generic MRQ2 magic rules. However in MRQ2 Elric, Loz was able to re-insert the full version of our original magic system (with a few very minor refinements) which had been abridged in the previous edition. So technically that one is improved too, if only slightly.

No the magic rules in MRQ2 are much improved too.

Makes me want to weep... I'll have to buy a copy and sigh at the love and affection lavished upon it.

To take a quote from the book: Both Rune Carving and Seidr are similar to common magic, but have casting times and durations more in keeping with the sagas. The incantations (charms/spells) they use are based on magic actually described in eddas/sagas. Shape shifting is self explanatory. Mechanistically each shape-shifting skill is limited to one type of transformation and it costs MPs to change form. Spa is a form of divination magic, allowing questions to be asked of the past, present or future in exchange for MPs. Whilst lacking in the flash-bang department, it can be a very powerful tool in the hands of a PC. Shamanism is almost the same as RQII Spirit Magic, but with a few tweaks to reflect Viking cultural differences... for example, Spirit Combat can only occur when a victim is sleeping. It concatenates the Spirit Walking and Spirit Binding skills together. Thus far its been pretty much only Loz and I who have written the MRQII books. It is always an advantage to have the authors of the rules system write the settings for it. As for layout etc, I think Mongoose is paying attention to criticisms and trying to improve the presentation and layout of the line. As for whether Vikings is a worthwhile purchase, only those who comment here can give you an unbiased opinion. But I'll just say that even if it cannot equal the heady heights of Rome, it is still a worthwhile investment.

Thanks for the praise Heirophant, I'm glad you found it a worthwhile purchase. It was a tough book to write, because I only had a month to complete it. As always I wish I could have focussed on particular regions and periods in greater detail... but in the end you need to keep the setting generic for flexibility and allow GMs to do the further research for their personal campaigns. I hope you have fun with MRQII. Combat should be a blast!

So very, very true...