Jump to content

Paid a bod yn dwp

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Paid a bod yn dwp

  1. I just love the look of this Starter set. Cover choice for the box is just gorgeous! That’s a lovely painting. Really captures and updates the vibe of RQ2. You’ve absolutely nailed it! 👏
  2. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, so pleased that these locations in dragon pass are being brought to life in this way. Plus city settings are cool. The right decision for the starter set 👍
  3. Yeah, I’m pretty flexible with the rules in game. But there’s a bit of a disconnect when you have a crunchy set of rules to learn with goal posts being moved from product to product. Nice to have a clear base line from which you can deviate if you want to, it also makes it easier for new players to assimilate the rules. I expect this won’t be the case with the starter, and I agree the quickstart was before the final core rules were settled on. But just flagging up as it’s something I noticed from the QS. Definitely a case for abbreviation in the starter rules though, not arguing that.
  4. I really enjoyed the Quick Start adventure and format, but a few small things like the summary of parry vs attacks were slightly different to what ended up in the core. Whilst I understand the need to abbreviate rules, I don’t think this particular variation in the QuIckStart helped new players. In this instance, the core is no more complicated, and probably easier with the chart/table. Will the starter set use the same basis as the core rules here?
  5. Newtling? There should be the alternative Newtling perspective Borderlands campaign. Repelling the attacks of the dry skins!
  6. That cover is still a very strong image. Amazing the amount of work that goes into writing these books. Thanks for sharing
  7. I blame Yelm, making my monkey mind soft in the midday Praxian heat.
  8. This is working well on so many levels. Well done. looking forward to seeing the fleshed out Jonstown. Great images - Guessing that the city references we see depicted in a few of the pictures, and on the back cover is Jonstown? Excellent choice of cover artist. I really like how you’re mixing up different artistic approaches. That broken painterly/impressionist approach really gets the imagination going - lovely. Artists that capture light like that really make Glorantha shine (so to speak). More of that please. All brilliant though. Lifts my heart seeing Glorantha conceptualised and brought to life like this. Really want a Krasrshtkid encounter now. Edit: As pointed out on Twitter, great reinterpretation of the luise Perrin cover
  9. Yes lordAbdul on the money here. This is how I see it. Passions take you above and beyond what you’d normally be capable of doing - Not necessarily whether you will or will not be loyal. More a case of whether you’ll be loyal with real passion, and fire in your belly!...or feel hesitant, & slightly unsure due to your personal doubts, other commitments etc (represented by failure -10%). Passions are emotive and can distort working either way. But failure on a passion roll doesn’t mean you’re going to become the opposite of loyal and turn into an enemy. As lordAbdul said fumbles are the ones to watch out for, but even then it could be emotionally crippling, but not necessarily twist you into an enemy of your clan etc.
  10. Yep agree 100% On a side note, I like how they’ve left a couple free strike ranks after the Crimson Bat has finished its attacks, gives a chance to teach that Mofo a lesson! 🤣
  11. That’s a great entry price. Really looking forward to this. Sincerely hope it grows the game, I’m sure it will. I like the design ethos of keeping as close to the core rules as possible, rather then an overly abbreviated version of the rules. Really hoping for a clean, clarified and accessible starter set that opens up RuneQuest to a new audience. I’m guessing that will be forefront in the design of the new starter? There’s been such a wealth of feedback here since the original release of RQG, guessing that’s helped steer the designers in presenting this boxed set a new?
  12. Have to give the designers the benefit of the doubt here. There are elements like the 3sr intervals that have crossed over from RQ3, but I’ve yet to find any example where RQ3 rule cross over is problematic. There’s no overt reference to parry restriction that could feel left over from RQ3. The borrowing of the 3sr must be intentional in RQG. Maybe alarm bells were ringing because of previous rules clash’s from older editions in the core book? There are a few what I’d consider to be missing combat notes ( not too many) which I’ll add to the Q&A thread. Scotty rightly pointed out that I would be breaching copyright with my other thread on missing combat notes, and perhaps they may clash with the designers intensions. That said presentation of the rules could be a bit clearer - for example why not have notes about simultaneous attacks included in the individual creatures combat notes? There’s a relatively small number of creatures that that rule refers to. It’d save a lot of confusion, and referencing back and forth. The less rules I need to remember the better. Have it all by the creature for easy reference. Also the general rule about 2-weapon attacks that is the fallback rule in the book, should be emphasised better at the front of the book. It’s there but tagged on to the end of another rule. I’d make it more obvious, give it its own bullet point.
  13. Yes it curiously seems to also fit with the RQ3 10 melee round
  14. I might well be befuddled as it’s late now, but I was thinking if there is no mention in the notes as to how to use the second attack, that they should therefore follow the rule on p8 and happen simultaneously?
  15. I’m also noticing a lot copy over from RQ3 in the RQG bestiary which reference parry, or the loss of parry due to making two attacks. Those bits aren’t relevant to how parry works in RQG now. Sure you can make exceptions, like the giant sweeping attack, but some of those like the Huan to are obviously referencing RQ3 rules, and are not relevant to RQG. Also the reference to attacks being 3sr apart was a RQ3 convention. Doesn’t break the game, but I wonder if it was intentional using that, instead of the RQG approach for the second attack?
  16. I’ve found the combat notes from RQ3, which shares the same 2 attacks as the Minotaur in RQG: ”A Minotaur can use either a head butt or a hand-held weapon in a given round. It could use both only as per normal two-weapon use, thereby depriving itself of the ability to parry that round” - RQ3 The note about the parry is really only relevant to how RQ3 worked. If you made two attacks you lost the ability to parry in that game, that’s not applicable in RQG. But what’s described there is not simultaneous attacks, yet we have that general rule on p8. It’s too problematic IMO and doesn’t make sense. I couldn’t imagine a Minotaur simultaneously attacking with a hand held weapon and head butt on the same SR. Perhaps my first hunch was right, and it’s meant to refer to attacks that are listed as already sharing the same SR?
  17. That ones comes straight out of RQ3. RQ3. It’s mentioned in case you presume you can use both of its listed attacks in a melee round. I believe the general rule in RQG (RQ2, & RQ3) is that you can make two attacks, if you have two weapons or forms of attacks, and enough SR’s available. Hmm...that’s really odd. I completely miss interpreted that - I was looking for a solution to explain how to adjudicate attacks that share the same SR. To my mind, whilst searching for a solution, it was specifying attacks which are listed sharing the same SR, as those are the ones that to me need some guidance. For example some will occur simultaneously, whilst some will be a choice to choose between. But you’re right too point it out, it doesn’t say that at all - Very odd - note to self, stay away from RuneQuest rule books late at night!🤪 Regardless of my misinterpretation, there seem to be some creatures like the Maidstone Archer that have 2 forms of attack available, and no combat note guidance, so are we to presume that they attack simultaneously with their two swords? If so which SR do they use? Right hand sr 1, or left hand sr 6? Maybe this is another case of missing combat notes and their two attacks are supposed to happen on the respective SR’s? There was nothing in RQ3 (their first appearance I think) about simultaneous attacks. look at the Minotaur, it has 2 attacks, and no mention of exceptions, so are we to presume they happen simultaneously? I still feel that as general rule it doesn’t sit well at all. Why is it there? That’s interesting - they’ve carried over the 3sr interval from RQ3, where by that was when you could make a second attack with a second weapon if you had one. In RQ2/RQG the method is to add the sr of the second attack to the first. I wonder whether that was deliberate or simply copied over and slipped through the editing process?
  18. Have started a new thread on this topic here:
  19. Yes agree. That’s a very good way to rationalise things like claw attacks in RQ. 100% with you there - Unless the special combat notes say other wise that will be my guidance in future. The more I’ve thought about it the more problematic the ruling on p8 of the Gloranthan Bestiary is under “weapons”. Even with guidance of the individual creature combat notes (some of which are problematically missing), it still plays funny with the baboon. I’m pretty sure the baboon was never intended to have simultaneous bite and claw attacks as a “standard” mode of attack? At least in past editions that was not the case, and i see no reason in RQG to adjust that assumption. Certainly a Gm can rule other wise in accordance with the narrative, but as standard mode I would think not. The base line needs to be clear and the rule on p8 of the bestiary muddies the water. @Scotty @Jason D I would advise removing that rule completely, and instead rely on the individual combat notes to explain simultaneous attacks. Take the Hydra for example, lots of heads, but a total blank with guidance on how to use them. Not everyone is coming to this game with the knowledge and experience of the game writers. Some people may not have even heard of a hydra before. It would make more sense to have included the original Hydra combat notes rather then relying on a general rule that doesn’t fit with all of the creatures in the bestiary.
  20. Sorry missed the “?” there. Yes, that’s it. Your average Baboon wielding a 1-handed short spear should be calculated from the following: Dex SR 1 Size SR 2 1-handed short spear SR2 Claw/Bite SR4 (see unarmed attacks) So short-handed spear attacks on SR 5. Claw/bite on SR 7. That means in practice, short-handed Spear attack on SR7, followed by Claw/bite on SR12.
  21. Yes as mentioned SR’s in RQG are just a way to sort the order of actions, not a literal measurement of time. It may help to consider the different system in RQ3: In contrast RQ3 turned them into a more specific measurement of time, mostly because they introduced movement into and throughout the melee round engagement. RQG like RQ2 doesn’t do that. Movement is only calculated in RQG as a means to find out at what point you arrive at the fight, after which the melee round is a more abstract engagement, and there’s no further need to calculate movement by SR. RQ3 continued to measure movement by SR throughout the melee engagement, therefore SR’s became a continual measure of time and distance. This is not what RQG does, SR’s are just to sort the order of the abstracted combat round, no need to measure time and distance. It’s simply sorting the initiative order.
  22. Yes. This confused me as well. That’s definitely out of the RQ3 rules, not RQG. Scotty made a comment elsewhere about giving the baboon a 2-handed spear so as to allow them a parry as well. Was scratching my head a bit & wondering what I was missing, but you’re right that’s 100% RQ3 rules. Grateful for him pointing out the SR mistake of the baboon, hadn’t thought to check out the claw SR as well, now they play how they were supposed to. But yes, I wouldn’t allow 2 claw attacks. Spear followed by claw/bite, yes definitely as per the combat notes. Claw and bite probably not, unless “victim” is surprised.
  23. Yes I can see now flicking through the RQG bestiary, the main design issue with the RQG Bestiary is that it’s missing quite a few of the combat notes for creatures, that were originally included with creatures in previous editions (mostly the RQ3 ones) For example the Lesser Hydra is missing it’s combat notes, as is the Dream Dragon. I haven’t checked the whole book but I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a few more missing. I feel that’s a shame as those kind of notes are really helpful for new comers to RuneQuest. We shouldn’t presume that new gamers know how a lesser hydra attacks with its many heads. Not everyone knows the story of the hydra, or has the previous knowledge of past RuneQuest editions. Sometimes a prompt like the combat notes is the spur newcomers need to grasp the concept of the creature, particularly with a crunchy game like RuneQuest. Be good if Chaosium could print future editions with all the combat notes included, particularly with the spirit of opening up the game to new comers (think starter set). Feel the absence of some combat notes in the bestiary are a presumption which isn’t helpful to newcomers. I may have to start a separate thread to note which creatures are missing combat notes, which could serve the basis of an errata.
  • Create New...