Corrections thread - Cults of RuneQuest: The Lunar Way

[MOB]

With the [Chaosium Con pre-]release of Cults of RuneQuest: The Lunar Way, this thread is to catch any typos or errors spotted. Please note them here, quoting the relevant page number, the error, and the suggested correction. We will correct the PDF file and the print file for reprints.

IMPORTANT NOTE: this is not a thread for questions or discussion of the rules, we are specifically looking for errors and typos only. Please take discussion to another thread.

[Mark Mohrfield]

Page 7 under Chaos Gods: thinghas should be thing has.

[Brian Duguid]

Multiple pages throughout: incorrect apostrophes - lefthand curly when it should be righthand curly (e.g. Yelm's, page 3; Sedenya's, page 23); and the same issue with quotation marks (e.g. "Young Life" and "Spindle Hag" on page 27).

[Richard S.]

Page 31, Shield is included in the list of rune magic available to Seven Mothers associates. Hwarin Dalthippa's associate description only grants Shield to chief/high priests. Either Shield should be removed from the rune magic section, or the restriction on who can learn it should be removed, depending on what was intended.

Edited May 16 by Richard S.

[PhilHibbs]

Not a text issue, but the file name is inconsistent with prior volumes:

[metcalph]

• Is Illumination a requirement to become an initiate of the Red Emperor (p113)?  For they are initiates of the Red Goddess (p114) who must be illuminated for initiation (p122).
• What are the Rays of Piercing Truth (p95)?  They sound nasty.  They are not in the Red Book of Magic nor RuneQuest: Glorantha.

[RandomNumber]

p3 Prehistoric Moons, first three paragraphs appear to be an ever-so-slightly different drafting of "The Lunar Way" on p6

[Tindalos]

Page 24: Lesilla Era, should be 9000 years long, not 900 to match the dates given.

[glarkhag]

Irrippi ontor runic associations lists fire/sky (p. 80) but the art work uses the light rune (p. 78)

[Brian Duguid]

This may or may not be an error, but ...

Page 100-101: "The Dark Side" - this is an expanded version of the text in The Guide to Glorantha, page 726, where it is an in-world text attributed to Hrunth vi Osbonn, Azilos, circa 1620. Possible error: missing attribution. Not knowing that this is an in-world text will colour the reader's view of its veracity.

[Rodney Dangerduck]

Jakaleel Rune Priest Question, page 89    (clarification needed?)

Assume a PC Assistant Shaman with a POW 18 does the "fetch thing" and succeeds.  They give a reasonable 8 POW to their fetch, dropping their personal POW to 10.

Do they qualify to be a Priest? 

1. Yes, so long as their combined POW remains 18 or higher.
2. No, they have to wait until their own personal  POW reaches 18.

 

 

Edited May 24 by Rodney Dangerduck
Clarified & simplified

[davecake]

None of the cult statuses for Hwarin Dalthippa require the cultist to be a woman, and lay members explicitly may be male, but all statuses above normal initiate are assumed to be female in the description (Shield Maiden, Priestess, Daughter of the Moon). This could do with a clarification, though it is noted that Daughters of the Moon can be male (just they find it more difficult). 

And not just to the gender of the cultist, but also their potential spouse in the passage below. 

Quote

They may keep their husband if they are already married, and if he is at least an initiate in an elemental cult. If he has not become a priest in his cult by the time of two years after the Moon Daughter’s ascension to their status, they must divorce—and they may not marry again.

 

Edited May 24 by davecake

[davecake]

Yara Aranis is of course always depicted with 6 arms and 2 legs. 

However, instead of the Sprout Arms spell (or a stackable version) to give her worshippers potentially 6 arms and 2 legs, she has the Spiderlimbs spell that gives her worshippers 4 arms and 4 legs! The spare legs (and the association with spiders) both seem rather unexpected! Why did this change from Sprout Arms? 

Also, the spell has the Darkness and Beast Runes, neither of which Yara Aranis has. Though she is given the Moon, Earth and Death Runes, and appears to have no Earth magic of any kind. 

 

 

Edited May 24 by davecake

[BakerDE]

Not an error but possible omission: conversion to Lunar weapons (p30), Lunar weapons are listed as Kopis, Sickle, Rhomphaia, and Sickle-sword. (p34, 141, 144) but no guidance (apart from Broadsword to Kopis) is given. Presumably Broadsword = Kopis, Dagger =  Sickle, Greatsword = Rhomphaia. The Sickle-sword has no cororolly but W&E says it used by Elite Heartland troops (W&P68) so maybe is not available for conversion.

Crossing publications - should this list include Great Axe = Lunar Crescent-headed Axe (W&E p60/61), Moon Blade no cororolly  (W&Ep60/65)?

It is not clear if if conversion reduces the converted skill by 15% per training session or if this remains the same.

Edited May 25 by BakerDE
Note on conversion reduction

[davecake]

Irrippi Onto - the Example text for the spell Commune With (Planet) says that in addition to augmenting the Rune score, the spell also grants the same bonus to spells that use that Rune (or Runes). This is not stated in the spell description, and increasing the Rune would not normally change the casting chance. Is the Example correct, even though this is not mentioned in the text? And does this apply to the very similar Discern (Constellation) spell as well? And do these two spells stack if applicable?

And are they both effective if their 'subject' is in the Underworld? 

That the two more or less identical have two different Techniques (Command vs Summon) is just confusing and somewhat arbitrary, so it seems like one or the other should be an error. 

[davecake]

Irrippi Onto - The sentence 'They may never marry an initiate, Priest or Lord of an elemental cult, but they may marry Sky- or Moon- worshippers.' is ambiguous and confusing, as Sky and Moon are both elemental runes. Does it mean 'may never marry worshippers of elements other than Sky or Moon, may never marry worshippers of other elemental deities unless they also worship the Sky or Moon? Ie if a potential spouse worships both Fire or Sky and also another element, either as part of the same cult (for example, Hon-Eel, who has both the Earth and Moon runes) or two, which rules applies? Also, are Fire and Sky considered the same Rune for purposest of this rule? (eg do the Lowfires, who seem to be Fire but have no association with the sky other than ancestral, count as Sky deities?

[davecake]

The Jakaleel spell Summon Ghost should be called Summon Dead, as Ghosts are explicitly spirits of the dead that have been bound to an area. The essentially identical Ty Kora Ted spell is called Summon Dead. 

It is unclear whether the spirit summoned by the spell is effected by Command Ghost. (both here, and in the Ty Fora Tea write description)

[davecake]

Not only is the section on Lunar Cyclec Rune Magic and the Lunar Timetable unnecessarily repeated in almost every cult in the book, but it is wrong every time but one! As it states that sorcery is unaffected by the Lunar cycle, while the Sorcery description on page 82 states that Sorcery with the Moon Rune is affected by the Lunar Cycle

[Dragon]

Extra word on page 92:

"Sheng Seleris invaded the Lunar Empire in 3/19 (1375) and remained until to 1460 (4/51)." The 'to' is extraneous.

[Aurelius]

Seven Mothers "Rune Priestesses are also allowed to join any associated cult as novice priestesses."

a) This means, actually, joining as an initiate, in which case this is a redundant statement.

b) This means, actually, hanging out with, for instance, the cult of Irrippi Ontor cult but not getting the magical etc benefits.

c) This means, actually, being able to be a Rune Priestess of Seven Mothers and also a Jakaleel Witch. Nuking around with Rune Magics from both cults, plus Irrippi Ontor Sorcery via Seven Mothers, plus fetch and allied spirit from Jakaleel plus later on in the career Lunar Magic from Red Goddess all wrapped up into a 007-style cult duties package from the Moonson. 

 

[Dragon]

Is the following set an inconsistency:

• Page 114: "There are fourteen known cases of the Red Emperor‘s death since he first appeared."
• Page 107: The artwork shows ten different 'Masks', the first Red Emperor was not listed as a Mask. There are ten names in the surrounding text: 1 Magnificus, 2 Artifex, 3 Voracious, 4 Venerabilis, 5 Robustus, 6 Celestinus, 7 Militaris, 8 Reclusus, 9 Ignifer, 10 Argenteus (and current). So no eleventh was listed in either location.
• Page 115: "Even the actual number of the Masks was subject to private doubt. For example, in the Darjiini city of Haranshold, nineteen Masks are recognized and named, and not the eleven listed above". (bolding added for emphasis.)

Presumably the 'eleven listed above' would equate to the ten listed in two places. I can grant that not every death created a new Mask. So 14 vs 11/10 is not much of an issue. But the 11 vs 10 does seem to be an inconsistency. Or does the first Red Emperor count as a Mask even without a Mask name?

[metcalph]

5 hours ago, Dragon said:

Is the following set an inconsistency:

• Page 114: "There are fourteen known cases of the Red Emperor‘s death since he first appeared."
• Page 107: The artwork shows ten different 'Masks', the first Red Emperor was not listed as a Mask. There are ten names in the surrounding text: 1 Magnificus, 2 Artifex, 3 Voracious, 4 Venerabilis, 5 Robustus, 6 Celestinus, 7 Militaris, 8 Reclusus, 9 Ignifer, 10 Argenteus (and current). So no eleventh was listed in either location.
• Page 115: "Even the actual number of the Masks was subject to private doubt. For example, in the Darjiini city of Haranshold, nineteen Masks are recognized and named, and not the eleven listed above". (bolding added for emphasis.)

Presumably the 'eleven listed above' would equate to the ten listed in two places. I can grant that not every death created a new Mask. So 14 vs 11/10 is not much of an issue. But the 11 vs 10 does seem to be an inconsistency. Or does the first Red Emperor count as a Mask even without a Mask name?

The one left out is the death of Dozkalos the Sword in the Eye, who was killed at Castle Blue by Alakoring (King of Sartar p82)

[Dragon]

32 minutes ago, metcalph said:

The one left out is the death of Dozkalos the Sword in the Eye, who was killed at Castle Blue by Alakoring (King of Sartar p82)

I had no doubt there was reasoning behind it. A section called 'Ideal and Reality' is all about how it could be counted differently from different perspectives. 

But Dozkalos was not listed 'above'. That name is not anywhere in this volume. Dozkalos might even be included in the 19 listed in Haranshold - that would make sense. 

The inconsistency is specific to the numbers listed in this volume. If it said "Even the actual number of the masks was subject to private doubt. For example, in the Darjiini city of Haranshold, nineteen Masks are recognized and named, and not the ten listed above plus Dozkalos", there would be no inconsistency.

If it said "Even the actual number of the masks was subject to private doubt. For example, in the Darjiini city of Haranshold, nineteen Masks are recognized and named, and not the ten listed above.", there would be no inconsistency. 

[Aurelius]

Typo: 

• Curse of Thed result 00 probably shouldn't be "Victim joins caster’s side for duration of spell."

Rulings or Clarifications Needed: 

• Red Goddess: Probably every Jakaleel Shaman ending up Illuminated will first ask whether they can use Shamanic Extension on Amplified Spirit Magic -- an easy way to always walk around everywhere with game-breaking amounts of Protection.
• Yanafal Tarnils: Do you get random gifts or do you get to choose? I guess you get to choose because the Initiate description says so, despite the d10 results in the Gifts table? 
• Yanafal Tarnils: If you "Gain a permanent Chaos Gift", do you roll from the Chaos Features table? Probably, because that is where Chaos Gift makes you roll from, but just to be sure. This probably includes all the Chaos Rune side effects of that spell too? 
• Yanafal Tarnils: Gift: "+10% to attack with chosen Lunar weapon" with a geas "Never sheath weapon without drawing blood. For each time this geas is taken, increase the number of times blood must be drawn." This probably needs a serious stacking limit, or a PC will take it a thousand times. +10k% weapon skill is a decent tradeoff for never sheathing your rhomphaia. 🤣
• Yanafal Tarnils: Gift: "Increase a raiseable Characteristic by +1 point" with a geas "Pay double tithing of magic points and offerings each holy day (an adventurer taking this geas twice would pay triple tithing, and so forth each time the geas is received)" -- I'm not sure what "and offerings" implies, but this feels like an extremely good deal. If the standards sacrifice is 2 MP, and if you are allowed to sacrifice from matrices, or throughout the day after your MP's regenerate, a lot of folks will probably take this 10 times. 

I mean, a GM will of course say no to silly stuff, but it's easier for everyone if the silly stuff is defined from the start. Otherwise it's always a negotiation over whether +30% or +50% or +90% or +10000% rhompaia is silly.

[eyraud]

p 25 Orogeran Era, said to have been 333 years e.g. 110,666 to 111,111. unless solar math is different, shouldn't the duration be 445? or the end date 110,999...