Loïc

I'm realizing I never reported the 2nd session... 😳 SPOILER ALERT: As I said previously, this 2nd session was dedicated to a heroquest to renew the bond between Wandle and the Red Cow Clan... Even my RQ-vets players had never perform any heroquest before... I freely adapted In Troubled Waters (from River of Cradles). To put it in a few words, no one knows Wandle original name, and the party had to rename her again, as did the clan's founder. First, they had to free the river from an ancient taint: a priest of Pocharngo was polluting the river with gorps!!! (see River of Cradles). After resolving this, they assisted briefly on Magasta's Pool creation, with all see gods jumping/sacrificing on the pool. Magasta's son was containing the chaos' armies when is sweet lover tried to jump on her turn. Then the fatal accident happened: Magasta's son killed her, destroying every memory of her, even her name (the players never learnt her original name) (The River of Cradles, again...). Of course, this great goddess was Wandle... At this point, the party understood it, and they understood Wandle suffers amnesia. It was on their own to decide what to do: remember her who she was (even if they don't know her real name), or not. Third step: on the Green Age, they encounter Generth, contemplating a tiny source and wondering how to name it. He's asking the players to help him. Of course, the source is the reborn of Wandle in the Green Age, and now the party had to make their decision: trying or not to give her back her memories. Their finally just help Generth and give her her name "Wandle" (any other proposition should have provoke bad issues for the clan's pact with Wandle, of course). Going back to their own time, the players are celebrating with a feast by their clan, even if Broddi has much to say about a slaughtered Lunar patrol (they of course had to access Grave Hill to perform the heroquest: they avoided it at the first, and in no way I would have spare them this scene...). This was a big session, and the players much enjoyed it. I tried to emphasize the drama mood of the heroquest, and it worked quite-well (two players even said it was "beautifull" and all agreed they really experienced the mystical atmosphere of heroquesting). Now my players are embroiled in the killing of Lunars, and fully involved in their clan's founding myths... Next session: back on the Coming Storm "regular" timeline, with many day-to-day scenes to reinforce their individual links with the NPCs...

Hi Ian, Much love it! Unfortunately, we are back in containment here in France... After planning it with my party, we all agreed to run it IRL, not online... We are waiting the containment's ending to go back on the Coming Storm. Hope this will be wery soon!!! I size this opportunity to thank you for this great campaign. I enjoyed it on every stage: great reading (I'm a book-addict, reading basically 2 or 3 books a week...), great time to prepare it and great pleasure to run it!!! I'm a long-time HW player, and I had never take the plunge to tun HW/HQ before. The Coming Storm decided me!! Thanks! (Promess: as soon as we're back on it, I'll report my misfits' adventures again.)

Thanks also Traquilitas Ordinis! Great ideas here...

Thanks !! EDIT : can't find it in the Cult of Chaos Library ? Does one of you guys remember the link?...

Hi all! Here (in France), we're still in containment (softer than the first, but my local gaming club won't reopen until january or february I'm afraid). So I suspended my Coming Storm campaign and ran a few CoC scenarios. Now I'm planning (my players asked for it!!) a MU student local campaign. They'll of course begin as 1st year students. Do you know any introductory scenario for 1st year students? Otherwise I thought about some non-mythos mystery for the first session (maybe just a maniac on the campus?...). Il precise I still own of course Arkham Unveiled and Miskatonic University, and several other books that will help (Tales from the Miskatonic Valley, Return to Dunwich, Death in Dunwich, and so forth). Thanks for advices!

Didn't know this one, thanks! I think I'll try it on the next explosive throwing, and so I'll keep my direction roll for success and failure, as required (I still like the possibility of smokescreen effect...). 😊

Yeah, throwing anything is easy, but as for shooting, hitting the target is hard... 😊 Where the grenade is landing ? For this kind of situation, I have a 8-sided die with cardinal points (N, E, W, S, SW, SE, NE, NW) (bought it at my local RPG shop). Of course, I consider that even on a failure the thrower is unlikely to throw the grenade behind him, at the opposit of his target... So, let's say the target is north of the thrower: if it's rolling N, NW or NE, the grenade will land beyond the target (at the opposit of the thrower). No particular effect. if it's rolling E or W, it's landing just East or West of the thrower. No particular effect. and if it's rolling S, SW or SE, it's landing between the thrower and the target. It's causing some smokescreen effect for one round, and so the target can try to run away, while the thrower can try to charge takin advantage of the cover. Fair enough I think. For this roll, always consider the target is north of the thrower, it's easier to resolve. You can let the player roll the "cardinal die", of course, it's funnier. I used this trick several times when a player is trying (and failing) to pass some object (artifact, weapon...) on another player, by throwing it in the heat of the action. Maybe you'll find it useful for grenades? I hope I was clear, I'm afraid I made many french barbarisms on this post... 😳

Oh, sorry, misunterstood... Maybe, for simple failure, you should apply something like "special failure" ? Close to fumble, but not a fumble (for example : 10 points from fumble and below) ? If it's a "special failure", there should be some collateral damages... And for other failures, I think no damage should apply to anyone (except cosmetic elements). As a matter of fact, when it's a success, it means the target is in the area of effects, and if it is critical success, it means the grenade is exploding right in the target's face. Why should the target suffer any damage with a failure? Eventually, you can just describe he is tottering, but personnally, I wouldn't apply damages. Of course, it can depend on what the target is : a person, a car, a building, the Great Cthulhu ?

Oh, and for "predictable procedure", I'm sure that your party, after their first failure, will be very cautious when manipulating explosives again. That's a good predictable procedure, isn't it? 😊

I do remember, as a player, two fumbles with hand grenades (once was mine, the other a friend's). Each time, it was CoC, and the keeper described how the grenade slipped from our hands and exploded at our feet... Game over... In such a game (CoC and other realistic settings), I would apply the "normal" damages for a "simple" failure. Or course, it would be devastating, but the players would have a chance to survive, even one-armed or one-legged. Some players, according to their characters, don't mind (an old professor or scientist, for example). And if the player doesn't want to continue roleplaying his mutilated character, I would allow him to create another one (and make the former character a contact of the party, as a NPC). As I said, fumble = death in the immediate area of effects. No need to roll the dice, really. Or just to ensure your party it is not "GM certified"... And with simple failure, well, applying the damages is quite simple. Is it fair ? I don't think a grenade has anything to do with such a concept... 😁

These 3 would be great (when you say just "Sartar", you probably mean Kingdom of Heroes?)!!! I'm in! For HW, I already own several books I was indeed lucky enough to buy at decent prices: the core book (in french), Anaxial's Rooster, Storm Tribe, Thunder Rebels and a few others... But some are sold at really indecent prices, if you can find them: the Sartar Rising trilogy, Imperial Lunar Handbook... (Of course, "decent" price is subjective. For me, 69$ for the Imperial Lunar Handbook is an indecent price.) I can do without, of course, and the PDF can do the job. But to be honest: I want to make my shelves collapse under books, and I prefer to do so by giving money directly to Chaosium and not to any greedy speculator... 😉 And maybe the POD on all HW/HQ titles would be profitable for Chaosium? Yes, I know, but who could blame me to try...? 😁

Sorry... But remember: Google translate is your friend! (Very useful to me when I have to read a german study in archaeology... 😉)

Oh... I misunderstood "splinted", sorry (Frenchmen, you know... 😁), as much as I misunderstood "ancient times" (for archaeologists, it means Antiquity...). Got to to review my lessons!!! 😨 So, for this kind of armor, I don't know anything, I'm afraid, it's too "modern" for me... 😄

Great news! Is there any chance to see HW/HQ books on POD one of these days? If yes, which titles?

The Roman army beared the cost of it when they began to colonize North Africa.... They quickly understood light cavalry was more efficient than the legions! 😁 There is: No leather under the strips of metal, but of course you coudn't wear this straight on your skin. The contemporary texts are quite unanimous (for the Roman army) about woolen or flax clothes (tunics) - probably depending on the climate and/or season. Don't know for Greeks, sorry!

To sum up, and add a few references... The controversy: in a first time, no one questioned the reality of broignes made of stitched scales, plates or rings. Next, in the 1930s, the controversy appeared. Two schools: some said it never existed and all images (Bayeux of course) were showing classic interlaced chain mails ; the others said the two (broignes and chain mails) were coexisting. I asked my colleague (an archaeologist specialist of medieval weaponry). Archaeology deeply changed since the 1970s/1980s, with the appearence of "rescue archaeology". This permits (at least in France, where it is the more developed) to discover more sites than ever. And of course, in the 1970s appeared professional archaeologists and not only "informed amateurs" or just historians. Now historians and archaeologists are more and more working together. Now, the "anti-broigne" tend to nuance their critics. There are many problems about the rings' or mails' discoveries: most of times, you find weapons (swords, scramasaxes...), eventually shields' umbos, but never pieces or armors. These are probably too expensive to be buried along with the body. That's the case for most of periods (roman, merovingian, carolingian and later), except for gaulish graves. archaeology of battle fields doesn't really exist: most of time, you don't know there was a battle in this specific location. And if you can locate a battle (Alesia, Castillon...), it's all cleaned-up! (loot of the winner side, scavengers...). In ancient times, metal is very expansive, so nothing must be lost... sometimes you find mails (out of graves)! Yes! Great! See what it looks like (this is chainmail)... and it was restored!!!! ...and finally, there is the discover of just rings, in graves or elsewhere. Great! I have rings! What the f*** is that??? It can come from harness, belts... or stitched ring broignes... This is the most difficult: you can find many and many rings at the same time, and not interlaced, and then it can be many things, even in a battle fiel context. And the rings' size is not a criterium, since even the Chanson de Roland talks about the size of the rings (the smaller the better...). Still, many texts have been studied again and again and seem to be quite explicit (La chanson de Roland, Charlemagne's capitularia...) and do distinguish between broignes and chainmails, even with broigne rings... Generally, in archaeological reports, we just write "rings" or eventually "parure" (clothes accessories), to stay neutral. BUT (of course, there's a "but"): broignes made of iron plates are proved. Here are a few references: http://aquitania.u-bordeaux-montaigne.fr/_jumi/pdf/133.pdf (p31, 33, 57) https://fr.calameo.com/read/0014628167911637988be (p187) https://docplayer.fr/72260206-Landarc-cahiers-landarc-n-3-moyen-age-les-plaques-de-brigandines-antiquite-tardive-moyen-age-moderne-contemporaine.html (for later periods) Each time you find plates of broignes, there are just a few, about 2 or 3 a time, sometimes a dozen if you're lucky enough. Complete plates broignes are never seen (from what I saw). Then, when you find rings that could possibly come from a broigne, it's roughly the same number... Now, my colleague said to me he was speaking of "mails" only for chainmails, and of "rings" when they aren't interlaced. What's a ring? It can be a thin iron rod you curve and then weld. Or it can be a round plate you're piercing in the middle. The both are OK to form a broigne, from the moment you're stitching them on a leather or flax clothe. So, now the specialists of medieval weaponry, especially archaeologists (and quite a few historians also), do not question the reality of broignes made of rings, as for plates or scales broignes. There is no real archaeological proof (as SDLeary would love to see...), but a body of elements that confirm what good sense imposes... In fact, the defenders of the reality of ring broigne do have much more arguments/elements/deductions than its detractors. These laters' only argument, since the 1930s, is a St Thomas reasoning: "never saw that, so it doesn't exist". But as I said, this controversy is now tending to be outdated, even if you will always find hardliners or, of course, obsolete datas on the web... as for any topic. Then, even if I do defend the ring broigne, I'm in no way its prophet!!!! Each one must of course form his own opinion! I just hope the few elements will help you, whatever opinion you'll choose!

Agree here. But before Schliemann, there was still a debate, and many people considered Troy as a myth, side to side with Atlantis... This is very common in archaeology: even when you have evidences (archaeological and/or contemporary texts), some reserchears still do want to contradict, sometimes for ideologic reasons (the Neolithic migrations in Occident for example), sometimes just because they can't admit they are wrong, or just to get themselves talked about... We have here in France a very good example with the oppidum (and later roman settlement) of Alesia. There was a debate since a long time, so Napoléon III ordered some diggings on the site of the best candidate (Alise Sainte-Reine, Côte-d'Or). Many evidences were found (the gaulish fortifications, epigraphic mentions...). So case solved. Over. No, some serious researchers (and the Asterix comics) are still contesting the evidences... Yet, as for Troy, Alesia "was never lost", and evidences were excavated later. That's also why I don't like much the notion of "myth" when we're talking about history and archaeology... Incidentally, most of the serious authors (actual researchers in history and archaeology) avoid to use this word (except those who are working on religious and spiritual matters, of course). By the bye, other myths about Alesia: Vercingetorix had a roman haircut and no mustache (he was already romanised!), as proves a stater (coin) figuring him. And he never surrendered to Caesar: besieged in Alesia, and after many defeats, his own men gave him up to Caesar (Comentarii de Bello Gallico, Book VII, 7, 89).

Before Schliemann, the city of Troy was considered as a myth, a fiction created by Homer. Schliemann was quiet a fraud and a cheater, but later diggings proved he was right. "Myth" is a notion that should be really really qualified...

Totally wrong, sorry. As an archaeologist, I can tell you there are several schools of thought in history as in anthropology and archaeology. About many and many topics. The great migrations of Neolithic in Occident, social status of roman villae, apparition of mass violences, alimentation during the Mesolithic, etc. And (I found that) the controversy about broigne with stitched rings: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/38999913.pdf See p21 (J.M. Kelly's PhD dissertation was published as soon as 1931!). So there is a controversy about the broigne made of stitched rings. Some english authors (after J.M. Kelly) maintain it never existed (only the plate broigne did exist according to them). Other english authors (after Samuel Meyrick), the french historians and most of archaeologists maintain it did. Apparently, the main bone of contention are the sources, mainly french (...). If the Bayeux tapestry can be easily criticized, the problem of the texts remains. Charlemagne's capitularia mention the broigne, but with no details. The Chanson de Roland (XIIth century) speaks many times about the broigne, and even says it is made of mails (verse 3387 for example), as the Chronique des Ducs de Normandie. There are too many occurrences to think the broigne with stitched mails is just a fiction. And too many times the broigne is well-distinguished from the hauberk made of interlaced mails. Now, anyone can make his own opinion about this, but there is indeed a controversy, and an old one! 😁 And sorry, you're especially wrong about history as a science. It is now, like archaeology and anthropology. These three (interlaced 😁) disciplines have scientific procedures (observations, experiments, recurrence, confrontation, arguments...) and since many decades they all call upon many and many physico-chemical analysis (14C, radiography, thermoluminescence, micromorphology...) and biological analysis (parasitology, DNA, biometry...). In my own specialty (landscape archaeology), I regularly call on environmental impact reports, and always on taphonomy and stratigraphy analysis. Yes, we're trying to restitute past societies, but with scientific arguments. Maybe TV historians don't really argue, but TV, you know... 🙄

Okay, took no long time of research. The museum of Bayeux itself (and its associated specialists) says there are both the broigne and the cotte de maille (or hauberk) represented on the tapestry, usually the broigne for footmen, the cotte de maille for riders. Here's a reference (sorry, it's in french): the educational guidebook for teachers edited by the museum : https://www.bayeuxmuseum.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/GUIDE-PRATIQUE-ENSEIGNANTS-TAPISSERIE-2018-19-.pdf So both the broigne and the cotte de mailles coexist in the XIth century. The broigne, cheaper and easier to craft, for poor footmen (😪), the cotte de mailles for wealthy knights (😎). Less efficient, the first seems to be abandoned towards the XIIth/XIIIth century. About the scale armor, there is no evidence for Bayeux, but archaeological evidences for the same period suggest that there probably were present at the battle of Hastings : https://journals.openedition.org/archeomed/15911 Hope these references will help (go-go Google translate !!!!).

No. The average French will think about mustard. "Maille" is one of the major brands of mustard here. 😁 Sorry, I misunderstood. Well, what are you talking about with "ring mails" ? The broigne (the rings are stitched on a leather hauberk)? Or the "real" cotte de maille (with intertwined rings)? Both did exist at different times in different areas, we have archaeological evidences of that (not only litterary sources). Or did you just mean they weren't used during the Norman Conquest?

Sorry, I later specialized in roman archaeology and landscape archaeology. I do remember this was L3 courses, and "war in the Middle Ages" was the theme of the year. The professor was Mrs Beriac-Lainé, a specialist of violence and catastrophees in the Middle Ages, very well renown in France at this time. Maybe wikipedia is more recently updated, but I would tend to trust more my former professor. 😉 And maybe, also, there are several schools of thought in this matter? As I said, I'm not a specialist of medieval weaponry. This said, as an archaeologist, I excavated many warrior tombs. Each time I found "mails", until the XIIth or XIIIrd centuries, they were mainly (when we could reconstitute them) "broignes". Promess: one of my colleagues is an archaeologist specialized in weaponry in the Middle Ages. As soon as I see him, I ask him for precisions and references! I'll trust you for Bayeux and the Norman Conquest, don't know about it. But "scale armors" did exist in the roman Empire (lorica squamata), so the myth (as many myths...) as a real real origin. And some "scale armors" were found in viking graves...

Certainly a fail from Bayeux' script team! Or maybe a lack of red yarns... 😉

Just a point about Bayeux tapestry: what is represented is chain mail, but more precisely "broigne". Here the rings are directly stitched on a leather clothing, but not intertwined. I remember having studying this at university. Intertwined chain mail is known as soon as the roman Republic, after Rome sacking towards 390 BC (the rings were riveted). Next (merovingian and carolingian periods, Norman conquest), was the broigne with stitched rings. The intertwined chain mail were discovered again by the Occident when the crusades began, but the old broigne was cheaper and easier to craft. The broigne was finally gave up towards the XIIIth century, and the intertwined rings chain mail adopted. I also wonder about this panel from Bayeux tapestry: broigne, at this time could be made of stitched rings ("chain mail") but also of stitched metal scales ("scale mail" ?). The picture figures two kinds of patterns: the rings of course stand for stitched rings broigne, but maybe the crossed-lines could figure scale mails? Of course, RPG don't necessarily have to be so detailed. Phew... 😅

French TV was at this time. Or at least it wanted to shock the decent bourgeois. 😊