Furry Fella

My concern is despite signing up I don't appear have got anything from this last set of announcements / previews??

Unfortunately not from me. To me page 224 is the correct and over riding position. I would interpret it as 2 unmodified parries - i.e. at full normal affect. As the two positions on offense and defense are in balance.

Basically combat. The groups I have been with had already started applying a general quality of result comparison. The approach tabulated in RQG is complete but overly complex and prescriptive to me. I do like and will retain the successive parry penalty but there I will be taking the "handedness" into account. I've never been a fan of Dodge as my own experience and observation strongly suggest that it is far to generous. On shields this is entirely a style thing as is weapon fragility. Ultra heroic oral traditions have breaking weapons and hacked up shields and rent armour in excess. Terrestrial accounts, the records of re-enactors and experimental archaeology and related expertise strongly suggest otherwise as does most of the finds record. Me I've always liked a slightly grimmer side and some grit to my fantasy and heroism. A difference in quality of success we always played as producing damage to weapon or shield if applicable. Normal strikes even if overcoming "protection needed to radically ruin something. Except in limited periods and locals of really quite spectacularly crappy production military kit doesn't wear out by minor accumulation - no attrition to breakage. Again with a 12 second combat round an attack is seldom ever a single blow so driving the defending weapon or shield out of line, numbing the arm or similar is every bit as likely (and fits with accounts of combat and of the grittier re-enactors). Hope this helps?

Well clear about what you intended. That your intent for defensive actions is so inconsistent with two weapon use for offensive action will be more of a concern for others than me as I have no intention of playing it as you describe your intent. The inconsistency with 2 weapon offense is part of it, imposing a counter intuitive and counter experiential penalty on fighting defensively is also part of it. But then my major disappointment with RQG is greatly increased wordage from RQ2 adds nothing, increases complexity and confusion and changes combat balance in a manner that detracts and is contra to my own (admittedly now decades old re-enactment experience). Again that is of limited effect as I will simply revert to RQ2 with a few mods to incorporate simpler versions of those changes I do find relevant.

Just so long as one stays On the job - to go one worse Or all successful Bushi are heady fighters - to plumb the depths

Yes as a macro frame work it can work really very well. We enjoyed it to - even with the interminable long running bad puns

Yet the published sources make it quite clear that there were unintended consquences. As ca planned even putting your base of forward supply into famine is crazed - but it is clear that Windstop badly affects all of Tarsh outside the Glow Line (that's the very great bulk of Tarsh and over 300K people badly affected. Everything we have seen makes it clear that Moon Boats are rare and costly to run - with demand dramatically outstripping actual numbers. What illustrations I've seen really don't show them as capable bulk haulage material at all. Basically the whole bit 1621 onwards is full of Lunar snafu, fubar and especially hubris. The accounts in the new sourcebook clearly show over commitment of too few resources so almost everything gets done badly. Worth noting that there are really major core internal disruptions at the same time in the deepest Lunar heartlands

I would also suggest Bushido from FGU if you have or can get a copy. They work quite well with some oddities such as the ideal engagement distances and positional attacks really forcing movement but some times in unexpected ways e.g. a fast close fighting character continually forcing the reach fighter way being a common one.

Difficulty Dice are a precusor to the approach of bonus & / or penalty dice. The approach is an extra dice to the skill role. This dice is modified to reflect total difficulty of the outcome. The aim is to apply proportional modification. For a new character a 20% deduction could be half of their skill but be say a 6th of the skill of an advanced character. For modifying I never use set lists as it is the outcome I'm looking to tweak. That is why the increased variables are - for me - a right pain. Almost no fight I run goes "straight" there is an aimed for outcome to make the PC's feel suitably streached and battered for their gain but recovery fast enough for the next scaled challenge.

At the certainty of also getting some what off topic, as elegant as the attack / parry game system is we need to not take it literally. The mechanism is modeling the interactions of 12 seconds for an outcome. In these circumstances I'm fairly sure "parry" is frequently misleading. Here the point made earlier that SR's are ordinal numbers not absolutes is very important. This more so with considering modifiers etc and dynamics. I like movement in combats BUT I have to remain aware that most minor movement is subsumed within the 12 second combat round and resolution. Once viewed from outside perhaps things that could be regarded as combat mods should also encompass SR mods etc? This bit IS divergent - this is perhaps why I conceptually favour RQ2 Defense over RQ3 Dodge?

I must admit I have given the players just that piece you quote and I try to give a good description of the situation. Players are encouraged to as questions. I try and either lay out a terrian or draw the circumstance on a largish sheet of paper. We have discussed this several times so things like: Light, footing, - particularly the combination, spacing between things and people, familarity with each other, slope, height, multiple opponents or things to track / be aware of etc. I find putting terrian into the situation makes a difference - especially once opponents or players start using it. Early on I used some simple ploys from associated NPCs to get the idea across about co-ordinated actions such as a small squad of militia using pre-ordered actions and manouvres. I have made an issue out of field of view and that this narrows sharply once engaged. Quite common now for the PC to consider frontage and numbers skill advantage, can they manage to have a cover PC observing / reacting. Can they artificially influence things with spells. I've been seriously caught by imaginative use of directed light (several strongly protected with light or lantern on shields blocking vision to those beyond who can manouvre unsighted or use distance effects. I'm still trying to get more small scale movement in with out the constrained structures that Bushido uses. Hope this helps

WE have a mistaken view on the level of armament generally carried in medieval England and even more so on the general readiness of all to engage in violence. I'm reading through Richrd Wadge's "Archery in Medieval England: Who were the bowmen of Crecy?" this is an eye opener even for me. Manual farming and harvesting societies have a very much greater threshold of harm and violence than we do. Even in the late 18th century harvesting for a decent sized village involved muliple deaths and multiple criplings every year. Stock were much more dangerous than today so being killed by being kicked or trampled was a real occupational hazard - cattle goads and spears or polearms and there use are clearly related and have use commonalities.

Techniques for various opponents are the key. Local re-enactment group starts almost everyone off on on staff. For a while I was quite active then work, injuries and age got the better of me. Being a history and militaria nerd i did quite some reading and it was 9is?) still possible to get quite a bit on European staff fighting - quartstaff and single stick - rather sophisticated stuff. Though I / we found out why some stuff isn't seen much in videos or films etc. Being short and square looking at recomended techniques was a priority. The best of these quickly got stopped except in coreographed fights. A hard downward thrust at the foot as the opponents weight shifts is really effective and bloody hard to do without really hurting or doing harm - little bones in feet break when struck at something approaching 90 degrees. Short of C15th articulated plate sorellets these not much protection either. The separated hands positioning is also very strongly about flexibility and speed of change from offense to defense. The worst move is to swing and not be blocked or contact as this pulls you of balance and you become a semi static target These some good stuff out there on weighted staves for Axe training. Axe work uses a great many of the same grips. Combination spear cut or crush polearms even more so. The objective is to unbalance or "cast" an opponent so a full swing can be made. This emphasises speed and so the thrusts. There is an old tradition for Saxons, Anglo Danish England and the Norse for "safe" training of axe men called often a "rattle of sticks". In full armour and with "padded" staves (but weighted) large groups fought fairly all in. Safe meant a few handfuls dead in several hundred going at it. The largest I read about were two full houses of Huscarles going at it to settle bad blood very late in Edward the Confessor's reign. From what we can deduce each side at at least 1,000 for a most of the day battle - the record is the winner lost several score dead

This issue was raised for the now closed corrections thread. It is likely that either some words are missing re pages 193 and 195 OR pg 194 is a missed edit from a straight copy and paste from RQ2. I mention this as page 195 is a clear departure from earlier versions of RQ which allowed only 1 spell per round unless with multispell or co-cast such as extension but it could include both physical and magical attack. Page 195 clearly changes that. See part quoted in bold. "Multiple Activities Within Melee An adventurer has fewer options when engaged in a melee. When engaged in melee, the adventurer must spend it attacking and defending. While an adventurer might throw a spell at an oncoming foe and then engage that foe in combat within the same round, an adventurer cannot, while engaged in combat, attack both physically and magically. This means that an adventurer who starts a round physically engaged in melee may either: . .Attack and defend normally; or . . Defend normally and cast spells. Thus, within a melee, an adventurer’s strike rank indicates when they may initiate an attack. However, the adventurer is performing that attack for the entire round and can do little else except parry or Dodge. Reading the Italics and underlined bit clearly limits combat to 1 offensive action (except as splitting attacks at over 100% or 2 weapons and no defensive action pertain as system listed exceptions). How this interacts with page 193 which clearly indicates multiple spells in a combat round "To determine the strike rank for spirit magic and sorcery spells, add the strike rank modifier for the magic points used in the spell to the adventurer’s DEX strike rank modifier. Remember that the first magic point used in the spell has no strike rank modifier. Any subsequent spells require 5 strike ranks to prepare, even if the same spell is being used." Over all I'm fairly sure that the error is in the table on page 193 and Magic Points Each magic point used +1 Should read Each magic point used (after the 1st) +1 This would sync with the other references and all of the previous versions. This would also provide some clarity to those worried about abuse of multispell. I'm not so worried as generating the power to restock the stored power used in such abuse is the catch.

Each to there own. I looked at both difficulty and bonus and penalty dice and shied away in horror - the complexities (bonus and penalty dice) or absolute arbitrariness (difficulty dice) make judging balance and outcome either impossible or blatant. I like it that RQG limits modifiers. It would help with some paragraphs suggesting the sorts of things to consider but not absolutes. In the absence of PC stupidity and foolishness in option taking and decision making the aim is a finely balance outcome that moves things along with the PC's feeling they have been extended or at least given a fair chance. Conversely good PC calls and decisions should make things easier What has always drew me to RQ was that it presented a framework and world / milieu to work within not be straight jacketed by

I have only ever regarded such references as guides. One of the best concepts I've ever come across was in Bushido (from FGU) where they referred to distractions and restrictions. Distractions being a modifier that could be "ignore" i.e. adapted to or adjusted for - pain from the last blow you received, close proximity of a fellow combatant. Restrictions being more physically permanent could not - e.g. a narrow corridor, weapon on the inside or a circular staircase, bad footing - things you had to pay attention to so reduced / changed your combat skill. I always look at the combat and make adjustments for such things - is the space congested, are the combatants used to "fighting in formation", light source or sun strike? The purpose is to get tactical manouvering back into combats. best example of going with and using this is a PC (fairly mediocre in combat) going fully defensive and working in an arc until his opponent was looking straight into the setting sun then full on attack against a half blinded opponent. It equally can backfire - the PC manouvering for advantage opening a gap in the line - oops! Otherwise combat gets to static.

Not so sure of this presentation. Both the Ducks and some elves live successfully in side the marsh and have done so for centuries. Except i periods of marsh expansion the Sartar population does live quite close to the edge (just looking at the special Tales of the Reaching Moon issue on the Marsh). This increases familiarity but does mean some harvesting of the fringe is an ongoing activity. Penetrating deep into the marsh and sparking a reaction yes. Shallow to moderate nibbling another story. Moving population into the edges f the Marsh - almost certainly going to generate a reaction. But food gathering - well quite a number of the elements of the marsh are plant or plant like so what effect does the extended magical winter have on them? There is a good special on the Marsh that covers the flora but I can't find it at present. Many of the encounter descriptions talk about "ambush" rising from within the soup of the mire - very much harder with significant ice or even the the general solidifying of the much that hard cold brings. All the material stresses how ponderous the response of the undead is and that it is important that the targets get constricted by lack of mobility due to conditions. The extended hard winter will address a lot of that negatively for the undead. The material to greatly increase the undead gaurdians will be being generated any way and more of it is likely if the marsh is not chanced. Delecti and servants have gathered their material from out side the marsh before and with Sartar clans weakend and the Lunars distracted and occupied? This is what I meant about the whole risk reward equation being reconfigured. Death by cold and deprivation becomes increasingly likely but death by marsh denizin remains relatively constant? Or does it? The resources of the marsh are barely harnessed normally so there is much to gain. Fish, plants, waterfowl indeed quite a range of other mammals. Beyond the very periphery who or what hunts them? Undead don't eat. So - high possibly peak numbers, little fear of predation.

Related and interesting conundrum - does Windstop help reduce or expand the upland marsh? On the expand the death and disruption favour expansion as does the desperate solutions question - both as a devil one knows and an alternative to death for the selfish etc. Being able to access the marsh also greatly enhances survival - wet lands are a treasure trove all year round for hunter gathers. How significantly is the marsh affected or is it "significantly isolated" from the magical climate - though that could easily go either or both ways. On the contract the weather Will impact away into the marsh reducing its threat and greatly improving access and "safety". The wetland is as said above a treasure trove all year round for hunter gathers. The whole threat gain equation changes so dramatically - more food, more fuel, less cold, easier to travel / less treacherous, easier to access. The extent and intensity of the pressure goes way way up - this has to impact on the hostile response. These sorts of things harm the target / defender at least geometrically and often exponentially due to the spread and frequency and intensity of events. Of note it will be the edges of the marsh that are most attractive as well as the most vulnerable / claimable. Suggested conditions are highly likely to drive the denizins of the Spinosaurus Flats in to that edge of the marsh for good or ill?

The comparison is with deciding to go defensive with a weapon and a shield. It is perfectly reasonable to make a parry with each at full effect (just note you cannot attempt to parry the same attack twice). You get no attack or spell this still may well be a valid and useful tactic - say fighting retreat backing down a corridor as other depart, holding a choke point to let others use magic etc. A weapon in each hand is just the same

Might I start by suggesting resizing to use the A4 page? Looking at the current when printed and allowing for reasonable default margins there should be 1cm of more use able width and 2.5 to 3cm of use able height. As current lines are 4mm in height that is 5 (min) to 7 (max) extra lines. As a suggestion Front page magic as 2 columns not 3 sections. Very Very rare for anyone to have / use all 3 magic systems - 2 is most likely. The extra room should allow melee, missile and shields for the great bulk of characters on the front page so removable from the back.

Agreed Styopa, I had looking at the sheet as one of several things to do this weekend. Its just on end of Financial Year (I work for a Government Emergency Service) so work / life is a bit skewed at the moment

Nice and thank you.Thinking a few things over as I suspect that some lines are pretty much redundant - can't see anyone having both Sense Chaos and Sense Assassin for example? These are basically issues with the base Character Sheet. I do really appreciate what you have done.

Joerg nice looking arguement , I agree the bite would come 1622/23 and a failed crop then would be seriously bad. Can I point you to Martin Van Crevald "Supplying War". Your depot approach simply doesn't work over even a minor fraction of the distance required. As a point at about 400 km the famous US Red Ball Express of WWII was delivering only 5% of the load of a 3 tonne truck to the end of the run. Even WWII trucks (on nice pave roads) are vastly superior to animal traction. This is what stuffs the Garrisons. Thing is Sartar has a really low population density, this elongates the surviveability of the livestock as do proper non modern agricultural technichques such as tree hay. The livestock we are referring to are actually tougher than the horses and survive better on much crappier forage. It is a matter of looking at much older breeds of live stock. Even modern Highland Short Horn Cattle (who are much more pampered and many generations from their base stock) are almost as tough as Siberian ponies. The base stock was comfortably farmed on the Shetlands and Orkneys just after the last Iceage. Most of this sort of stock can survive on reeds and even feed adequately in the woods. As a note general evidence and experimental archaeology suggests hunter gathers can survive well at densities as high as 2 or 3 per square mile. Sartar population given in the guides is less than 6 per square mile. I've yet to find a pre modern society where rural populations didn't both eat better and "conceal" major reserves than / from their "urban" brethren. The more decentralised the society the greater this effect is. It was quite common for pre modern farming communities to carry more than a years worth of reserves. On spoilage actually Bronze and early Iron age storage is better here than later medieval techniques. The seal pits rapidly become anoxic so toxic to what causes spoilage and the edge loss actually poisons vermin to. The use of major graneries etc is not good storage but it is good control. Wastage in towns and garrisons will be higher. The alternatives from return to gathering are not available While the best evidence is 15th century or later due to there being more written records it normally takes 2 complete failures of 3 to 5 years of bad harvests for things to get bad. This is an area where the loss of vermin may actually be felt - yep rats get eaten as do mice and dead birds eta al. Onions survive in the ground well and even better in dry cold. That the great bulk of ancient vegetables are brassicas is also an advantage. About twice the weight of vegetable can be beneficially consumed under hardship than was historically true in good times. The stems etc have a biter taste but still provide good nutrition. Push come to shove the pea plants can be eaten - not appetising but close to ok for nutrition. Certainly such vegetable dross makes good stock feed. Loss for spoilage and vermin is only a problem after1622 failure as the magic is already in place and Bless crops drastically reduces both spoilage and vermin - yes this requires looking at the previous editions descriptions but the structure applies. Then as you suggest a good extended hard freeze provides a lot of relief as there is not spring melt and damp nor a spring explosion for vermin. . The moveable people include all those to the east and south of Sartar to. This movement opens / eases options and pressures to. While the edges of the Prax close to Sartar are good for pastoralism they can be cropped. even moving the herds though would add a big gain. I understand the point re the magical effect like a volcanic winter as an area effect but all those sorts of things are much more complex with micro climates etc. That is the variation in impact I was alluding to. The big problem with this analogue is the acid poison effect of the volcanic winter effect, plus the much greater and persistent wet / damp. This would not be present and it is now regarded as likely more damaging than the cold - certainly it is so with the trees and like vegetation. In the end I expect there is no "final answer". My query still comes down to this a population loss in the short term of less than 30% is linked to complete population collapse because the society ceases to function and collapses first. With its relatively short duration the Windstop event just dosen't give the sustained disruption to even come close to this sort of impact. Even the collapse of the end of the Old Kingdom in Egypt takes years of successive worse failures of the Nile floods and associated droughts.

Hence the importance of water. Even a small ship is 100+ tons with only a little wastage and food for perhaps 6 people. The continuous winter just makes transport even more improbable. The SNAFU for the Lunars is it makes extortion expeditions so much less effective and shorter ranged. Sartarite "cities" are all (even Boldhome) well below the supplied from 1 max 2 days away size. With magic and other things the Gloranthan world is much better at surplus generation - Bless Crops, Bless Herds, Cloud Call, Cloud Clear, Rain etc. Magic also inceases the feasible storage and sharply lessens waste. While the magic failed for 1622 it is 1 failure. Serious famine for many - quite likely, population collapse not even close. Here the serious disruption due to elongated winter acts as either a benefit or a double penalty. If your are in trouble help is less likely and moving is worse. If your almost ok then issolation is good.

The theory looks good the practical reality is much much worse. Pre railways there is just 1 known example of a significant stationary army not facing starvation if it was any distance from water - "the Sileasian Potato War" - part of Frederick the Greats Austrian wars. Called this as "discovery" of locally planted potato crops was the only thing stopping the Prussian army disintegrating. Despite having shorter lines of supply this broke down for the Prussians relatively quickly. The Austrians had further but only a little over 100km and barely managed it. The loss for traction feed is both ways. For Sartar the distances back into the Glow line are much further (looks like either 200 miles to 300 miles depending on the route) through "friendly territory that is also suffering and much mote densely populated at approx 360K for a smaller area. The routes are long as clearly they can't go via Wintertop or Shaker Temple. If they expected it then with several years preparation then if the discipline was kept mostly they could ride it out. Here is where co-rruption will likely get them badly and really very likely where / How the Orlanthi Hero Questers found out what the plan was. The only other good examples of long distance famine relief / supply not by water and pre modern are the Incas - there the key difference is three fold. Firstly the transport wasn't coming back (it was Lamas and made up 40%+ of the food). Secondly well feed Lamas can go days to even weeks on very little and very poor fodder. Even the Incas did it the sensible way took in food and took out people doing as much as possible by shuttle routes that were fairly short. Any spare capacity the Lunars might have had gets throughly chewed up trying to supply the thousands static in crap conditions at their new temple and ritual site. Note their officers and NCO's - at least some of them will also have sold food on the black market to the "urban" populations getting the real worst of it. Spot hardship caused by dislocation due to war - especially civil war is common and generally localised - very bad for some 10's of square miles around the various "peak" disruptions but again the data from the 30 years war is the bulk of it is hardship, loss of wealth and forced relocation. It used to be thought that the 30 years war had depopulated significant parts of the Germanies by up to 2/3rds the reality was being identified 30 years ago. The very great majority of those people didn't die they moved away.