AJ The Ronin

Hope there's still time: 

page 118 Draconic: "speakers of Draconic also know Old Pavic at 1/2 their Old Pavic ability" 

it should say "1/2 their Draconic ability"

Thanks for all the replies. 

Basically, with a character parry and shield skills been equal he is better off parrying if attacked by a short stabbing or Long-hafted weapon and using the shield otherwise. 

I'm new to RuneQuest Classic and I have questions and or commentary regarding the rules. 

Question 1: Page 28 says that weapons takes damage when are used to parry a successful attack. This rule applies to successfull parry only, right?  (In a failed parry the defender takes all damage)

Queation 2: If you successfully parry a successful attack done with a short stabbing or Long-hafted weapon how you calculate how much damage is transferred to the defender? (Those type of weapons do not damage other weapons)

Question 3: a critical with an impale weapon is both a critical and an impale? 

page 18 under Resolution of Melee: point 2 should have an asterisk?

page 28 under Weapon Damage Absortion: "4 points of damage taken in 1 melee round..." Should omit the "4"

edit: the high number for the STR and SIZ average for Gargoyles (page 91) don't match the dice. 

The average of 5d6 is 17.5

p.84 last paragraph under non-intelligent monsters it says: "instead of working under the guide. lines for..."

The period after "guide" should be removed. 

2 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

You have the pdf? Did I miss the distribution of the pdf?

The backerkit surveys are arriving. I got mine on Saturday at noon. 

Will do. 

The second, based on Backerkit. Haven't be able to sit and read until a few hours ago.

I think I found an error in page 27 of the new PDF. There are 2 "Fist" on the table and the first has its HP as "head". 

I'm guessing the first "Fist" on the table should be "head-butt". 

My plan is to run it. It's the reason I won't get a leatherette (my books get pretty bang up from use) but I'm considering a second copy. 

Heck, I'm considering buying Borderlands and Beyond now, starter reading and start a campaign in January. 

Congratulations! 

Let's start breaking stretch goals. 

Is possible to get a preview of the pledge levels?

Also how long the campaign will be?

I agree, this should be at Chaosium main page. 

Will the re-print be a Kickstarter? 

Silly question perhaps but will Pavis and Big Rubble (Glorantha Classics) will be ever be reprinted?

If you can read Spanish there is a version of the game for free at Nosolorol

I think it will be free today only. 

Good news. Looking forward to it!

3 hours ago, nclarke said:

Why? it's not as if it's 6e. It's BRP pure and simple so you can continue playing with the BGB.

Selfish reasons obviously.

As unpopular as it is I'm favoring CoC7 over the Gold Book and I'm trying to keep my gaming under one system (trying to control my gaming ADD). I know it's not the norm, but like I said "selfish reasons".

It's sad that CR won't get a 7e update. 

I know that Cthulhu through the Ages have a chapter and a few months back there was a Kickstarter (Strange Aeons) for a Sci-Fi 7e setting but it got cancelled. 

Chaosium plans to update Cthulhu Raising (or expand the CttA stuff)? Is there a 3rd party tackling something like this?

Thanks in advance for your answers. 

In Facebook Chaosium said that Magic World will continue in PDF and Print on Demand. 

Let's see if the answer about future products. 

After sleeping on this I have 3 questions (I have no idea if the MD team post here):

1. Once the CoC kickstarter is fulfilled they plan to keep supporting 7e?

2. Are Ben, Mike and Dusting still with the company?

3. When the Golanthara and Runequest products will be on Chaosium store?

Found this on Moon Design site: http://www.glorantha.com/special-toma-episode-greg-talks-about-the-future-of-chaosium/

This is just pure speculation but maybe Chaosium's Runequest will be based on Magic World core system with one tweak here and there (I guess the will remove the resistance table at least) and Golanthara fluff back in the text  

Again, just speculation.