Paid a bod yn dwp

Very much like the grey green colour of the lizard. I much prefer it on second and third looks to the first one. Not necessarily because it's more realistic, but that it captures the gravity and power of the creature better. It's that contrast with the lighter physique of the warrior that works so well. It's monstrous. Perhaps it could have a an added crest to match the original, and make it feel a bit more fantasy, but I think the treatment of the creature overall is excellent

This change works well. Its interesting seeing the different versions. The first was much more 50's pulp monster movie as iskallor mentioned, clever & fun. Though now seeing this new version, it feels like perhaps a better way to go. Theres a great weight to the rock lizard now, and well realised musculature that adds to the drama and feeling of power in the beast. Its brilliantly realised. Being (perhaps overly) critical: I feel that there could be a change to the warriors expression, to show some hint of vulnerability. Perhaps the warriors sword arm could be raised up a tad, and a little bit back from the viewer to express a greater feeling of movement in the composition through the flex of the arm. At the moment it feels a little static compared with the great sense of movement elsewhere in the composition. It needs a bit more urgency in that sword arm I think all it would take would be a very slight adjustment in the angle of the elbow, to break the strong horizontal it creates (just a little). It may help to create a greater feeling of movement with the follow through of the arm as it swings at the monster. The sense of cool reflected light ( presumably from the blue sky) on the monster is great. The cool reflected light could also be emphasised more on the highlights in the armour & the warrior in general, as It works so well on the beast. The 2 subjects would match (unify) better in terms of their shared colour world, and the armour would have more "zing", with stronger contrasts of cool and warm colours. Perhaps a greater sense of texture in the warriors clothes, and skin tones, to show a little grime and dirt. The wonderful contrasting red helmet plume could perhaps have a tiny bit more variety in its colour to texturise it and break it up just a little. Excellent work though, really glad you've found this artist. Its what Runequest deserves.

Exciting. Looking forward to the return of Chaosium Runequest.

Clever picture well executed. I like the retro 50's monster movie poster vibe

These image previews look very good. I really like the classic bronze age feel in the detailing. Another example of new Chaosium & new Runequest getting the vibe right. I do wonder whether it could be a bit more gritty, suggesting the realism of Runequest, a little grime and dirt? But I'm being picky, this looks very promising for a new statement on a classic game. Look forward to seeing the whole image and how the attacker is portrayed

Just finished listening - A superb concluding interview with Rick Meints. Thanks

Thanks largely to the podcast I'm currently experiencing Gorgnard Nirvana, with games of yore becoming relevant again (classic Runequest) , and new versions in print or on the horizon. In many ways the podcast has become the 21st century equivalent of "WhiteDwarf" magazine for me ( in its earlier RPG aspect). It provides a great forum for discussion, ideas, and reflection on RPG goodness. I mostly played Runequest when I was younger, but I've discovered much more through the podcast about games I knew of but never owned or played back in the day. I really like that fact that although a Grognard podcast, its also forward looking discussing new games ( obviously from the correct Grognard perspective) Keep up the good work!

I think the "starter set" format works really well as an introduction in D&D 5ed. I wonder could a similar form & name be used for the new Runequest?

Runequest for Dummies?

Regarding parrying and attacking with a single handed weapon in a round, everyone I knew played one attack and one parry per round with RQ2. The examples of rurik demonstrated this consistently. There are still advantages to 2 weapon fighting. For instance if an attack is made on the same SR as the opponents attack SR, then the opponent must chose to give up either his/her attack or parry, as you can't both parry and attack on the same SR with the same weapon. 2 weapon fighting gets around this problem (whether 2 weapons, or 1 weapon and 1 shield). 2 weapon fighting also gives the flexibility to do either 2 attacks, or 2 parries, in place of the standard 1 attack and 1 parry. However when I bought the RQ3 rules, it confusingly contradicted the RQ2 rule, and made me question my understanding of RQ2. I later bought an updated version of RQ3 with an errata, which deleted the offending paragraph and brought the ruling back to, 1 attack and 1 parry per round with a single handed weapon. Although different editions, the later correction to RQ3 rules, in my mind allays any lingering confusion about the intention in the RQ2 rules. It is as per the Rurik examples - 1 attack and 1 parry per round with a 1 handed weapon. Interestingly the contradictoray rules in the "original 16-page BRP" mentioned by Zit , and the RQ3 ruling (before the official errata correction), suggests this was an area where the game designers were in two minds as to which ruling to use. I'd love to hear an official Chaosium response on this, as ive seen this same question many times on this forum. Perhaps even a sticky could be used for Runequest Classic FAQ's? After all its a living published game, once again

Yes - points well made. Now I'm inclined to agree with the flat% penalty for called shots. I quite like your thinking on SR tactics - gaining speed at a penalty. It opens up SR in a more dynamic way. Quite tacticle, but then again strike ranks were already. Perhaps this opens up more dynamic options within the framework of the strike rank?

Doesn't the fact that half skill is relative, makes it a penalty in proportion to a characters ability? in contrast a flat minus 30% penalty regardless of ability would be unfair proportionally? Yes, I'm inclined to agree - Perhaps a superfast character would have a chance of an aimed blow before the end of the round (last SR). Maybe a flat SR penalty, with the exception that slower characters who would full outside of the SR round due to the penalty, would still have the chance for an aimed shot at the last SR? That way fast characters would still have the edge ( say plus 5 SR to strike aimed blow), but slow characters would still have a last chance at an aimed blow after everyone else has had a go? Hmm...yes I see what you're saying. That does read like it may be problematic. I haven't played RQ in a while. Is that a recognised consensus? Are there ways around this issue? Does not statement of intent address this issue through penalty to SR, because of change to statement of intent?

Jeff - Its my feeling that rereading both RQ2 & RQ3 with (somewhat) fresh eyes, I've found that there is a surprising amount of ambiguity in what actions are allowed in a melee round. Specifically the rule regarding number of attacks & parries with 1 handed weapons. RQ 2 Rurik examples are clear that there is the option of 1 attack & 1 parry per melee round with any weapon, however the written rules (not the Rurik examples) in RQ2 are more ambiguous about what number of actions are allowed with a 1 handed weapon. In relation to this I've read on these forums a couple of instances where people have cited the RQ2 rules for 2 weapon use, as a reason to suppose there is only one action ( attack or parry) allowed with a 1 handed weapon, despite the Rurik examples. RQ3 has more clarity on this issue, stating clearly that a character can perform two of the 3 actions ( attack, parry, Dodge) per melee round. However it goes on to confuse the reader about this ruling with a section on 2 weapon use( which was later corrected in an errata to bring it back inline with the RQ 2 ruling 1 attack, and 1 parry per melee round) I mention this as it has a bearing on Strike ranks & actions. For me Strike ranks work well, but the RQ2 rules ( as they stand without the Rurik examples ) could be much clearer about what combat actions & number of actions characters are allowed. I think that is my one criticism about how the RQ2 rules were written.

Yes this "predictability" is perhaps the one area of SR that feels a tad too restrictive. Though I do like the simulationist aspect of SR's taking into account speed/dex, weapon reach, and size/reach. Occasionally a bit of random luck could be worked into the games SR to shake things up. Granted there are penalties for surprise, but just occasionally a lesser determined fighter might get the jump on an experienced fighter in the normal run of combat. I'm not sure if the "predictability" of the RQ2/3 SR's models this well? I guess that is where fumbles come in to modify the predictability of the combat SR melee round?

One other advantage regarding using a shield in conjunction with a weapon: The shield doesn't have a min requirement of dex x 1.5 to use in the off hand, as a second weapon would using the 2 weapon rules

Good point about attacks with a shield. Though the 2 parry option remains a good defensive option for weapon & shield users. Ha ha - inspired. This has to be used in a game... Dex x 2?

So revisiting the RQ2 rules. ( this is helping me too) Advantages of shield use are: Shield doesn't take damage & won't break like a valued weapon can when used for parrying. Possible GM ruling that shield provides passive protection to at least 1 hit location (depending of size of shield) Effectively a second weapon, which follows the 2 weapon use, and therefore gives the possibility either of 2 parries , 2 attacks, or standard 1 attack & 1 parry. In contrast a single weapon user can only make 1 attack and 1 parry in a melee round. An impaling attack will impale a shield - bad for the use of shield whose effective use is diminished if weapon is above a certain encumbrance. But good for taking out opponents weapon as it becomes stuck in the shield. Parrying an attack with a shield which takes place on the same Strike rank as your own attack, has the advantage of still allowing you to make an attack with your weapon in the other hand. If you had parried the attack with with the weapon instead of the shield you would lose your weapon attack. This is because of the ruling that you can't both attack and parry with the same weapon on the same Strike Rank. and for fun A well polished bronze shield can be used as a mirror, good for looking at Basilisk/medusa indirectly Throw it like frisbee for a surprise attack The cost of training up the use of a shield is well worth it, and maybe something to aim for. You could quickly raise up your shield parry to a decent level. Good objective for your starting character.

Yes, I prefer the RQ2 (classic) ruling here - adding the previous weapon SR to the new attacks's SR. Its a bit more colourful then RQ3 approach of adding a standard 3SR to subsequent attacks. The RQ 2 approach has the potential for more attacks in a round, which I think can lead to more exciting & extraordinary characters like Mr Shergar Sunhoof, and those tanked up Trolls. Its nice to have a game which scales well in both directions with contrasting character abilities, some ordinary & some extraordinary - A more colourful game

I see your point, 0 + 0 = 0. I think in this scenario i'd be running away from the nimble 2 tree wielding giant, before waiting to see which SR he attacks on (then again not much chance of that on SR 0) I imagine that the sheer long reach of the 2 tree attacks is what would justify the SR 0 attacks. Perhaps a good time to "close in" on the giant to negate long reach advantage? Having said that a GM call could easily introduce the RQ 3 ruling for 2 weapon attacks, and add 3 SR ( I checked the rule book) delay for the second weapon attack, if 2 attacks on SR 0 seem unreasonable.

Heh heh, thanks - Great combo shadows over Bogenhafen and Glorantha, enjoy!

Thanks thats a very clear summary - great. It should be made a sticky at the top of the forums somewhere Heh heh - I wouldn't want to get on the wrong side of Shergar Sunhoof, Centaur Extraordinaire. A truly awesome opponent,sent a shiver down my spine just reading that description

Thanks styopa & RosenMcStern Thats really helpful cheers. Nice to know that I'm not misinterpreting RQ rules. I'd forgotten many of the nuances. A very useful refresh - need to plan a game now

Wow long discussion - helpful in refreshing my memory of the rules, and sorting RQ2 from RQ3. RosenMcStern - Just trying to figure out what you're implying here, as it sounds like it has potential. Apologies my RQ rules memory is a bit rusty, and I may have missed a bit of the context. Are you saying that a two weapon user in RQ3 can elect to counter attack with his/her second weapon on the same SR with which he/she parries with the first weapon? Which has the effect of making the single weapon user unable to parry, as his weapon is engaged on that SR? I thought that a weapons attack was only possible on its particular Strike Rank. I haven't found an instance in the rules which suggests a counter attack possibility on a chosen SR as in your statement "I counterattack on the SR he attacks"? Edit: Therefore am I correct in thinking You can delay an attack to a Strike rank later in the melee round ( enabling your "counterattack" suggestion) With 2 weapons it is possible to Parry with one weapon, whilst simultaneously attacking with the other on the same Strike Rank. Which by extension is reliant on the 2 weapon user having a SR of the same value or lower then his/her opponent, in order to counter attack on the same strike rank?

Many thanks - thats helped me see through the fog of rule obscurity. I get it now. That would be quite a spectacle, attacking 2 foes 4 times with two weapons

Hi all, Thought this would be the relevant place to get clarity on a ruling of 2 weapon use in Runequest classic. I've been revisiting the rule book, and finding that I'm not entirely clear on a ruling. On p29 of the classic Runequest, the rules for Two Weapon Use continue, and point 6 has a bit of ambiguity for me: In particular the last sentence of point 6 which states Am I right in thinking that this is saying that one of the weapons can be used to as a split attack( page 26 classic Runequest), to attack 2 separate opponents, following which the second weapon can attack normally at full percentage on one of these multiple opponents? Is this suggesting that providing there is sufficient strike ranks, a two weapon users can potentially have 3 attacks,but not 4? So in other words splitting the second weapon attack is not allowed in the RQ2 rules?