Kloster

IIRC, the praxian side in Moonbrooth had some broos.

@radmonger, you appear to quote me, but that excerpt was from Jeff. I don't know why but my post appears differently in Edge and Firefox.

According to @Jeff in , we have: "Humakt is in general neutral towards most deities, except those that misuse Death or sanctify betrayal. He's friendly only to Orlanth and Ty Kora Tek. Humakt views the Red Goddess as an enemy and the Seven Mothers collectively as hostile. But Humakt is neutral towards Yanafal Tarnils - Humakt's opposition to the Red Goddess is not because of Yanafal Tarnils but something else, perhaps historical, perhaps cosmological - likely both." You wrote earlier that: "They also shared the same temple in New Pavis. IMO Irrippi and Buserian Sages can worship at the Lhankor Mhy Temples and get rune points replenished. They just can't sacrifice for rune magics that are alien to Lhankor Mhy (such as IO's Madness) or for rune magic from LM's associated cults. " (on which we agree). If Irrippi can worrship at Lhankor Mhy temples, that does mean they are at least neutral, and most probably friendly.

As 7M is (collectively) neutral or friendly with most of the cults (Enemy with none, and hostile 'only' with Eurmal, Maran Gor, Odayla, Orlanth, Storm Bull, Waha and Yinkin), this seems a high probability. IIRC, in addition, Humakt has no problem with Yanafal, Etyries is associated with Issaries and there is not too much problem between Irripi Ontor and Lhankor Mhy.

Just for the record, Greek trireme had a crew of around 200 men (including 170 rowers, according to Herodotus). In Artemisium, Greek lost around 100 ships of a fleet of 271 (around 35%) meaning around 20 000 dead, and the Persian lost around 400 ships of a fleet of 1200 (still around 35%) and around 80 000 dead. As it was not too far from the shore, the number of death may have been lower. In Salamis, the Greek lost 40 ships of a fleet of 370 (10% losses), meaning 8 000 death and the Persian lost 200 to 300 ships of a fleet of 1200 according Herodotus (25% losses), meaning between 40 000 to 60 000 death.

Yes, some of them had very low losses, but some were more ... bloody: In Munda (Caesar vs Gnaeus Pompey, the optimates led by Pompey lost half of their men. In Ruspina (still between Caesar and Optimates), Caesar lost over 30% of his men. I am not speaking of naval battles, where most of the dead drowned, and losses were unsurpassed. Correct. I think the very high Persian losses were caused by the impossibility to flee, being blocked by the sea. Correct. This, I don't know. Very true. This, I don't know.

For Roman losses, the main sources are historians (Livy, for example), but also the annual census, and the archives of the legions, including pay. But Caesar's Commentaries are a masterpiece of propaganda, glorifying the author, not an accurate description. Romans had similar traditions, but their view of the end of the battle was not the same.

All of what you say is correct, and I took a bit too extreme examples. Let's take another example: Battle of Cynoscephales. For the Macedonians, around 8 000 death for 22 000 men (around 35% death) and for the Romans 1000 death on 30 000 (around 3%). In Pydna, Macedonian army had over 20 000 death on an army of 43 000 (again around 35%-40% death), and the Roman one supposedly 100 death (seems far too low) on 35 000.

As far as I remember, Roman losses vs Hannibal in Cannae or Lake Trasimene were much higher. According to Livy, Roman losses in Cannae were around 50 000 on around 80 000, not counting alae sociorum. This is over 50% death and around 80% losses. Those 50 000 death represent also rougly 5% of the adult male roman population. I know Rome is iron age and not bronze age, but I don't think the figures would have been very different with bronze weapons and armors.

Yes, the reasons behind (the rationale) is different, but most of the world physics are identical.

This is what we do.

Yes, this one of them.

In fact, there is still some roman maps remaining. I have seen at least 3, located in south France (Nimes, Orange and Rhone valley), and I think a fourth in Vienne (France, not Austria).

Heroquest(ing) rules

and stirrups

For Romans, the day started at sunrise, and there was 12 hours from sunrise to sunset, described by their number. Thus, summer hours were much longer than winter hours. And nights were either measured in 12 noctis hora (night hours) or (for the army) in 4 vigiliae (night watch), each made of 3 noctis hora.

Consider that idea stolen.

For me, birthdays are celebrated the last day of sacred time, when the new year begins.

This is the effect of being above 100%, not the rule that allow or not to be above 100%. For me, as nothing in the rules forbids a passion to be over 100%, the standard rule apply. Of course, as there is no skill category modifier, only an EXP roll of 100 or a situational bonus can drive you over 100%, which will be rare.

Same for me.

I think this is another good use for Battle skill.

Yes, of course. Why not. It can be a SR bonus, but as a feint, I would give a malus to the parry (or dodge).

My take would be: Critical: Attack on SR1 (but not first, because you can have 2 critical augment by 2 different characters, potentially in opposed parties). In decreasing DEX or increasing normal SR if several characters are acting in SR1. Special: Minus 5SR Standard success: Unchanged Failure +3SR Fumble: Attack on SR12 after all normal SR12 actions. If 2 or more different characters are in this category, decreasing DEX or increasing normal SR between them.

You can have success levels on the resistance table.

Yes. I completely overlooked them. This is why I went back to 'Shadow over Borderlands'.