Dangerford

[Aprewett]

Noob here, so I may have missed something.

I am reading two conflicting locations for (I think it’s called) The Battle of Queens. The rule book and others has it at the Runegate area. The Starter box has it at Dangerford. What am I missing?

thanks

[David Scott]

The Battle of Dangerford is 1625 and takes place at Dangerford.

The Battle of Queens is 1626 and takes place at Old Top (near the Two Sisters Village on the Stream)

[DrGoth]

Sometimes it's referred to as The Battle of the Queens and sometimes as The Battle of Queens. 

The sourcebook (p.41) gives its location as "where the Creek meets the Upland Marsh" The same wording can be found in King of Sartar, (p. 155 in the original print version, p.128 in the current electronic version). KoS has the Sartarites "were outnumbered but held a good position". The sourcebook expands on that with "The Sartarites held a good defensive position at the base of Old Top Hill" (p.42). Interesting it's the base and not on the hill.

Unfortunately the Sourcebook's index only lists "Battle of Queens" and then refers to Kallyr's death (p. 209) and not the earlier reference (p41-42).

You can also find the battle's location in the portion of Vasana's saga in the base rulebook on p.19. It's marked on the map there (ref. pt 0). Here, is again referred to as "The Battle of The Queens".

 

 

[Aprewett]

Thanks everyone.

My confusion started with Nicks Dangerford. But thanks for clearing it up.

[DrGoth]

There's this too

https://wellofdaliath.chaosium.com/battle-of-the-queens/

[jajagappa]

1 hour ago, Aprewett said:

My confusion started with Nicks Dangerford.

Which is because he was running a campaign, and his campaign's timeline necessitated having the two events occur at the same time. It's a good example of taking what you need or like and meshing it into your Gloranthan campaign.

However, even in Nick's work the locations are still the same: Battle of the Queens at Old Top north of Runegate, and Battle of Dangerford at the Dangerford crossing north of Jonstown.

[Nick Brooke]

6 hours ago, Aprewett said:

 My confusion started with Nicks Dangerford. But thanks for clearing it up.

I did everything I could in my scenario to tell you it ignored the canonical timeline and mashed two different events together to let your players do something original and awesome instead of following the script, but I’m sorry if you were confused.

[Aprewett]

The fault was mine. I got the battle names mixed up.

[RandomNumber]

On 4/7/2023 at 8:04 PM, DrGoth said:

https://wellofdaliath.chaosium.com/battle-of-the-queens/

This may be exactly what I need... it's Fire Season 1626 and my PC's are hurrying back from Beast Valley (Ruins of Bonn Kanach) to Sartar upon hearing news that the tribal leaders are raising the fyrd and calling their thanes to arms as the Lunar provincial forces move south towards the Creek. The Battle of the Queens is about to be fought and my PC's are duty-bound to be there.

The detail in this Well of Daliath article doesn't seem to tie back to RQG though... is there guidance somewhere on what 'minimum guiding passion' and 'guiding passion loss' mean. I can wing this, but if there is a resource behind this that I have missed, I'd like to read it. Hoping @Scotty might know...

[Scotty]

36 minutes ago, RandomNumber said:

The detail in this Well of Daliath article doesn't seem to tie back to RQG though... is there guidance somewhere on what 'minimum guiding passion' and 'guiding passion loss' mean.

It's the passion that your player take that defines their group, at the lowest amongst them. Everyone could take Loyalty (Cool skirmish band name) or use their Loyalty (clan) etc. It defines the cohesiveness of the group. If the group isn't cohesive enough, they can't do daring things. My players all had Loyalty (Thane of Apple Lane) as that's who they all work for at 60%, so their Guiding Passion was 60%. By the end of the battle, it was at 85%

[Dragon]

2 hours ago, Scotty said:

It's the passion that your player take that defines their group, at the lowest amongst them. Everyone could take Loyalty (Cool skirmish band name) or use their Loyalty (clan) etc. It defines the cohesiveness of the group. If the group isn't cohesive enough, they can't do daring things. My players all had Loyalty (Thane of Apple Lane) as that's who they all work for at 60%, so their Guiding Passion was 60%. By the end of the battle, it was at 85%

Oh, that makes a bunch of sense for minimum guiding passion. So glad I read that. And I see your roll for Intensity ended with 90 Intensity. But 'Guiding Passion Loss' I don't get. Meaning they all start at 60 in Round 1, and it looks like they engage the Silver Shields. Which should have a Passion Loss of (1d6+2)x5, 15 to 40 points. Yet the result is +5, not a loss of the guiding passion. I am confused by that, maybe because I never read the Pendragon rules.

[RandomNumber]

8 hours ago, Scotty said:

It's the passion that your player take that defines their group, at the lowest amongst them. Everyone could take Loyalty (Cool skirmish band name) or use their Loyalty (clan) etc. It defines the cohesiveness of the group. If the group isn't cohesive enough, they can't do daring things. My players all had Loyalty (Thane of Apple Lane) as that's who they all work for at 60%, so their Guiding Passion was 60%. By the end of the battle, it was at 85%

Thanks @Scotty - much appreciated. I'm trying to piece this together - Intensity, the role of Passions in battle, Posture etc, none of which seems to appear in RQG. Is the system you're using explained in this by any chance: https://www.chaosium.com/book-of-battle-2nd-edition-pdf/ ? 

It make sense to me that your group's passion increased but as @Dragon notes, Well of Daliath suggests that the Passion declines each round (Guiding Passion Loss)