Kloster

Or at least provide a single document (not web site with links) containing said errata. RuneFix 1 was a good start, even if containing more 'new rules' than corrections.

More or less "From the Chaos, Light, Law and Vegetables".

This was exactly the roman method. Throwing a pilum when advancing, then a second just before contact to create holes, disrupt organization, wound or kill some opponents and block shields with the impales. Then, the heavy infantry chew the survivors with their swords. It worked perfectly fine versus phalanxes.

It's not watering down. It is just a completely different set of rules for casting rune spells. I think we should forget getting back to previous editions on this subject (and try to understand what is the precise meaning of the new rule).

RQIII had no Rune Points, so could not tell us anything on this subject.

That's right: Only the 1st RP is lost permanently. You can go to 0 this way, but this is unlikely. But this is also a reason why you can have more Secial spells than you have Rune Points.

Yes, you can. When Rune Lord (and perhaps Priest, I am not sure), you loose RP before loosing POW. You even start the DI by spending a RP.

I think you are partly wrong. You indeed spend POW to get RP, but instead to have a number of special spells equal to your RP, what I understand is that you gain a special spell each time you spend said POW. The difference is that you can spend or loose RP (through Divine Intervention or One use spells), and thus know far morespecial spells than you have Rune Points.

Mine is Colonel Dax from "Paths of Glory".

The real big change is the Rune Points.

This is exactly how I understood it: You loose the RP, but not the knowledge of the spell.

As told by Dave, Tarsh is a good reason. In addition, I once played the 'River of Craddle' campaign with a Lunar Officer, whose family was on the loosing side of a dart war, and was 'promoted' to a new site: Head of Marine Imperial Infantry ... in Corflu. He went to Pavis through caravans, embarked on a boat to Corflu and the rest occured. And to explained why this lunar and various orlanthis and praxian cooperated: The enemy of my enemy is not automatically a friend, but is better than the full fledge enemy: Chaos. The guy that helps you destroy gorps and dragonsnails can not be completely bad (This is at least what decided Orlanthis and Praxians).

This is one of the reason why, whatever the rule, my characters use shields.

Agreed. This is only one of the reason I dislike this 1 skill rule for attack and defense (but not as much as I dislike the over 100% opposed rolls rule). I already had a discussion about this subject with Jeff. I acknowledge his arguments, but it is still (for me) in opposition with my personal experiences, both as player and as a former fencer.

No problemo, baby.

There is another reason to prefer Shields: They are much cheaper to replace when brought to 0 HP The medium shield has the same number of HP than the broadsword (12), but costs 1 to 14L to replace (depending on materials) vs 50L for the broadsword.

Even when we allowed 1 roll per session (not season or adventure), downtime was occurring during the session, and so you couldn't have a second roll. The only case that I can see a player can use the trick is when a downtime is done in a full session, with no adventuring at all during the session. This is very unlikely, but possible with RQG, but Joerg spoke of RQIII, and I can't think of a full RQIII session that contain only downtime and no adventuring.

Why abusable? It was so easy having a POW gain roll without looking for them.

Also not wanting to start a flame war. I agree Mythras was cited as an example, and so were RQ2 and RQIII. I just answered to your comment about 'big, universal', and not as a player of one of those games (I am currently playing none of those).

I know more current RQIII players than Mythras players.

If not an Humakti, of course, they are living, so can become dead so can be resurected or become undead. The inventory.

Completely true. Yes, RQG's SR are more an initiative order than a measurement of the passing of time. Not my tastes. I think the result is quite different. Completely agreed here.

I haven't checked the errata, but this is a good point.

RQIII was very clear (Player book p48): "... he may not attack with a weapon with which he parries. Two handed weapons however, can be used to attack once and parry once."

Yes, I used that while in the army 30 years ago. Having a hot meal readily available while a mountain trek was really enjoyable. And the food was correct. For army food, it was exceptionally good. At least, this is what our foreign students told me. That was this: Water that once the compartments were broken, was mixed with calcium-something.