Jump to content

Glorantha technology and Glorantha material technology


David Scott

Recommended Posts

I am more curious about what keeps the impala riders on the backs of their steeds. "Glue" doesn't work on bare buttocks, and doesn't last long enough anyway...

Without stirrups, I imagine that there will be no parting shots, only shots from the left broadside. While demonstrating a quite different reality check topic (showing both buttocks and boobies of a super-heroine), a contortion artist demonstrated her inabiity to twist her body that much. (She did manage to twist the shoulders almost 180 degrees to the hips.)

But then I suspect Golden Bow and related steed-mounted archery deities to grant magic tthat corrects an arrow's flight path after release from the bow.

 

 

Telling how it is excessive verbis

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, M Helsdon said:

Indeed. Well enough was sufficient for around a thousand years of cavalry combat. I've watched a re-enactor stabbing and thrusting at targets using a Roman horned saddle.

Yup! I'm simply saying that there is not quite as much power behind their thrusts or stabs, not that what they had wasn't an effective option.

SDLeary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SDLeary said:

Yup! I'm simply saying that there is not quite as much power behind their thrusts or stabs, not that what they had wasn't an effective option.

True.

It's interesting that many things 'we' take for granted, are subject to vigorous (and at times vicious academic debate); things like how a Greek phalanx actually fought, and even how a Roman legion was really organized. There are massive lacuna in our knowledge of the past.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎4‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 10:41 AM, Joerg said:

Without stirrups, I imagine that there will be no parting shots, only shots from the left broadside.

Curiously, the Parthians could make the 'parting shot' (in reality the Parthian shot) without stirrups...

Note the technique (shown on the famous Hephthalite bowl) which does not require a 180 degree turn of the body, because the bow is drawn behind the head.

There's an even older image on a Neo Assyrian cylinder seal, but it doesn't show so much detail.

Hephthalite_horseman_on_British_Museum_bowl_460-479_CE.jpg

Edited by M Helsdon
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, M Helsdon said:

Curiously, the Parthians could make the 'parting shot' (in reality the Parthian shot) without stirrups...

Note the technique (shown on the famous Hephthalite bowl) which does not require a 180 degree turn of the body, because the bow is drawn behind the head.

There's an even older image on a Neo Assyrian cylinder seal, but it doesn't show so much detail.

Hephthalite_horseman_on_British_Museum_bowl_460-479_CE.jpg

Drawing behind the head makes the angle worse, not better, when shooting back. I think it was designed to be able to shoot straight front without interfering with the horse's head. The traditional European three-fingered draw on the right side of the head would require a minimum angle of 30-50° to keep the bow from interfering with the horse head.

Given the shape of the bow, the angle has to be about 130° from the horse head, or the lower arm of the bow would hit the back of the horse, resulting in quite a lot of pain to the horse and an embarrassing short shot and possibly breaking the bow. More or less what I called the left broad-side.

That's one advantage of rising up in the stirrups - not only do you get a bit more rotation out of your hips, you also clear the back of the horse by a bit more.

1 hour ago, Yelm's Light said:

Hope he's got a good-size callus on his neck...

That depends on his release. If he uses the thumb release, the back of the hand against the neck will provide excellent stability in the draught length and an anchor keeping the release height constant.

Catching an archery release in art is about as hard as catching a horse's foot positions in gallop (like in the depiction above, which is as unrealistic as it can get but has been the artistic depiction of gallop throughout history), as the naked eye isn't quite able to provide a good impression of the fast moving feet. You don't hold an arrow at maximum draught with a war bow, drawing and releasing is one smooth movement.

I suppose the archer keeps his quiver on the right hip or on the horse's flank, as the left hip is occupied by the sword which looks shorter than his arrows, and a back quiver would be prone to interfere with this behind the head draw. The rear end of a notched arrow causes almost as much harm as the tip when encountered in a fast movement, not to mention skewered eyes when approaching a target along line of sight of the arrow.

Telling how it is excessive verbis

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Joerg said:

 ... Catching an archery release in art is about as hard as catching a horse's foot positions in gallop (like in the depiction above, which is as unrealistic as it can get but has been the artistic depiction of gallop throughout history) ...

Actually, the above is exactly correct in all particulars.  The rider has signalled his mount that he is about to release, and needs a momentarily smooth platform for said release.

The well-trained archers' war-horse is in mid-jump, eliminating the jarring impacts of a gallop.

 

This information brought to you courtesy of the Alternative Facts of America program.  You're very welcome.

 

C'es ne pas un .sig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Joerg said:

Drawing behind the head makes the angle worse, not better, when shooting back. I think it was designed to be able to shoot straight front without interfering with the horse's head. The traditional European three-fingered draw on the right side of the head would require a minimum angle of 30-50° to keep the bow from interfering with the horse head.

You'd best go back in time and tell the various people who used the technique it's impossible, Joerg.

You also seem unfamiliar with the size of the bow.

This re-enactor does a similar shot at 13 seconds. Not being born to ride like a steppes horse-archer he does use stirrups.

 

Edited by M Helsdon
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, M Helsdon said:

This re-enactor

Thanks for the link @M Helsdon. It reminded me that we have a horse archer in our RPG group. I'm not sure what group he's with but I found the links to the British and local associations. Although they focus on modern course archery it does of course give insights into historical horse archery and the practicality of it and cool pics and vids:

Bareback horse archery: http://mountedarchery.net

modern stuff but gives a sense of how it works: http://www.barcroft.tv/horse-archery-centre-of-horseback-combat-london-uk

 

Edited by David Scott

-----

Search the Glorantha Resource Site: https://wellofdaliath.chaosium.com. Search the Glorantha mailing list archives: https://glorantha.steff.in/digests/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, M Helsdon said:

You'd best go back in time and tell the various people who used the technique it's impossible, Joerg.

You also seem unfamiliar with the size of the bow.

This re-enactor does a similar shot at 13 seconds. Not being born to ride like a steppes horse-archer he does use stirrups.

 

When you have stirrups, you can rotate further than when you simply rotate around your waist.

SDLeary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SDLeary said:

When you have stirrups, you can rotate further than when you simply rotate around your waist.

True. Sadly few modern re-enactors can shoot a bow from horseback without stirrups (I've seen a Japanese horse-archer do it, but I can't find a copy of the video online). However, the ancient horse-archers learned to ride and shoot from an early age, and the behind-the head draw is one method of approaching full rotation, as the arms can flex the additional distance. There are numerous depictions of the Parthian shot in ancient sources, and it seems improbable that the artists, who were working for the warrior elite, would have shown something that couldn't be done.

The steppe horse-archers all seem to have used the thumb draw and variants of it - numerous thumb rings have been excavated, which made the draw more comfortable.

 

4 hours ago, David Scott said:

Thanks for the link @M Helsdon. It reminded method we have a horse archer in our RPG group. I'm not sure what group he's with but I found the links to the British and local associations. Although they focus on modern course archery it does of course give insights into historical horse archery and the practicality of it and cool pics and vids:

Bareback horse archery: http://mountedarchery.net

modern stuff but gives a sense of how it works: http://www.barcroft.tv/horse-archery-centre-of-horseback-combat-london-uk

 Interesting. Thank you.

Edited by M Helsdon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/04/2018 at 10:41 AM, Joerg said:

I am more curious about what keeps the impala riders on the backs of their steeds. "Glue" doesn't work on bare buttocks, and doesn't last long enough anyway...

And I always thought that bareback riding meant not having a saddle, rather than not having any pants. Sounds really uncomfortable to me.

  • Haha 1

Simon Phipp - Caldmore Chameleon - Wallowing in my elitism since 1982. Many Systems, One Family. Just a fanboy. 

www.soltakss.com/index.html

Jonstown Compendium author. Find my contributions here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, M Helsdon said:

You'd best go back in time and tell the various people who used the technique it's impossible, Joerg.

No intention to do that. What I tried to do was to explain to you the limitations that were blatant to me analyzing that depiction, which (apart from the impossible position of the horse legs - compare the stills from the video) I regard as an expert observation by an artist who knew how to perform that maneuver himself.

So, with these basic observations, what I said was that I don't think that a rider with that draw technique and a seat that far from the rear end of his horse, shooting a horned rider bow, would be able to shoot back at an angle better than 150° from the horse-head to horse-tail line.

Does this prevent a Parthian shot? Of course not. All you have to do is careen the horse by the missing 30° from directly away from the enemy for the shot, and you get the 180°. But you aren't riding directly away in that moment any more. And if you are riding in formation, either all horses have to careen in the same moment, or all have to run away at that angle from the beginning.

And that is a deficit that the introduction of the stirrup removed.

If the Parthians pulled this off using only the extreme end of the left broadside arch, they needed extra discipline to be able to shoot at the same part of the enemy line they were riding up to in the charge. More respect to them. But like I said, this is a problem that the stirrup reduces strongly, as the video shows nicely.

Quote

You also seem unfamiliar with the size of the bow.

No, in this case you seem unfamiliar with the mechanics of the bow. I do admit that I don't own a horsebow, but friends of mine do. If you draw one, the horns make an outward movement which increases the span at rest at one unavoidable stage of the process, and again when you release it. As you draw the bow above your head for this behind the head rest for the right hand, only the release part of the cycle matters. That still spells plenty of conflict for bow horns as long as depicted on the Hephtalite bowl.

The low angle at which the rider's bow arm is depicted doesn't leave enough room for the release cycle above the horse back. It works fine if the bow is held out to the flank of the horse, however, but that's a difference of about 30° from the tail, or 150° from the head.

 

You don't seem to have gotten my comment on the behind the head draw for the angles for forward and backward shots, so I will try again. Hopefully in easier terms.

The archer in the video uses the European three-fingered draw on the right side of his head. For shots directly to the front this means a disadvantage because the horse head gets in the way of the lower bow horn.

The behind-the-head draw solves this problem by moving the arrow axis to the left of the head-tail axis, basically allowing the rider to shoot past the head while still facing forward, and reduces the angle by which the upper body has to be twisted to the right by about 15° - maybe only 10° if drawing the bow overextends the left arm to its back. If you don't believe me, take a strong expander and try to imitate the behind-the-head position, and hold a torchlight or a laser along the draw line. If you have a pointing laser, try aiming it while pulling the force of the expander.

That's why I think that behind the head draw makes eminent sense for a horse archer.

Now twist the upper body to the back.

All of a sudden, the advantage for the forward shot turns into even more of a disadvantage for the rearward shot.

Rather than winning 15°, you lose those 15° for the rearward bend, so a 180° shot would require a 105° bend of the shoulder line from its normal position perpendicular to the horse-head horse-tail axis, rather than just 90°.

Everything clear so far? If not, indicate by breaking your quotes of this text where you lost me. If everything is clear and accepted, no need to quote this.

I am not the most flexible person, but forcing my knees facing forward I can pull my shoulder-to-shoulder axis back about 45° without any major discomfort. A trained contortionist might add another 15-20° without much discomfort.

You will have to trust me that you need to feel somewhat comfortable with your posture when releasing an arrow.

So, let's assume that our steppes horse-archer can bend his shoulders back to a line of 65° from perpendicular, or 155° from the horse-head to horse-tail line. If he anchors his shot on the right of the head, he can add another 5-10° to that, arriving at only 15° from directly rearward (165° from forward).

However, our archer on the bowl uses the behind the head draw, substracting those 5-10° from this angle.

 

This result is quite plausible, and it has the big advantage of the bow horns completely avoiding the horseback.

Hence my well-considered assumption that 150° is somewhere near the extreme backward firing arch of the archer depicted on the bowl. Human anatomy, personal experience how such a horned bow folds back, and simple geometry.

 

Whether the parting host rides away in a straight line or at a 30° angle doesn't seem to be much of a deal, right?

Unless the opposing line has archers, too. At 30° inclination, the fleeing horses provide a target almost twice as big as if they were running away in a straight line. The riders provide their profile in any case, they are fine - until the horse is shot from beneath them, and they tumble at breakneck speed to a ground they cannot see because they are twisted backward. Quite a lethal fall, I would expect, discounting being trampled by friendly hooves.

 

 

Quote

This re-enactor does a similar shot at 13 seconds. Not being born to ride like a steppes horse-archer he does use stirrups.

Sorry, but bollocks.

The stirrup was invented by steppes horse-archers. In the still below you can clearly see the about 30° extra twist that the hips provide, for a shot that goes back at about 160° - which would be even in my personal mobility range if I was able to ride a horse freehand at such speeds. Without the stirrups, no twisted hips, and much reduced backward firing arch.

Which is exactly what I said in the previous post, if you had bothered to read it, which I feel I have every right to doubt.

 

Quote

 

So once more.

I doubted the ability to do a rearward shot at 180° without stirrups, and claimed that 150° would be anatomically be the limit. Everything shown in this video helps supporting this assumption.

A 150° limit eliminates any problem of hitting the horseback with the lower horn of the bow. Problem avoided.

The maneuver of riding up to an enemy line, riddling it with arrows, than turning around as a unit and riddling it with arrows on the retreat is still possible, but the retreat cannot be directly away from the enemy, but has to offer quite a bit of horse flank.

Getting the turn right for a huge body of riders is quite an equestrian feat, especially since each of the horses will have its individual rhythm of ground contact and in the air phases. Even more of a feat if done without any guidance from the hands.

Getting the departure angle right is another difficulty, although less important - the horse archers would be fine with peppering the left neighbors  of their previous frontal attack victims in the defensive line with arrows. And if they hit the end of the line, a 90° turn will be enough to lead the riders away from the enemies.

 

However, the same maneuver with stirrups allows 180° turns, elevating the bow higher above the horse back, and avoiding any impact problems there. The direct rearward shot would remain reserved for stirrup-users like the Sarmatians, but unavailable for the stirrup-less Parthians.

But even without that improvement, a unit that could deal severe damage while retreating was worth twice to thrice their numbers unable to do so on the battle-field. As proven against Crassus.

 

So, what Gloranthan implications do I draw from the considerations above?

For the Praxian mounted archers, the behind-the-head draw would help to avoid sable or impala horns when shooting forward, regardless of stirrup availability. A full forward coverage still appears unlikely to me, so the mounted archer charge would usually come at an inclination of at least 30°, and probably depart at a similar angle, making the charge-retreat pattern a letter v. 

Zebra rider mounted archers are better off with regard to beast horns interfering with forward shots, but will still profit from stirrups in their arch of fire, too. Horse or mule riders too, of course.

 

 

Edited by Joerg

Telling how it is excessive verbis

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, soltakss said:

And I always thought that bareback riding meant not having a saddle, rather than not having any pants. Sounds really uncomfortable to me.

Just quoting the cultural dress for impala riders. Riding Godiva-style hasn't been reported as especially chafing in the few videos I have seen on the topic (on German TV - due to US sensibilities, I doubt you can find those online except on porn sites), whether with saddle or without.

  • Haha 2

Telling how it is excessive verbis

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Joerg said:

For the Praxian mounted archers, the behind-the-head draw would help to avoid sable or impala horns when shooting forward, regardless of stirrup availability. A full forward coverage still appears unlikely to me, so the mounted archer charge would usually come at an inclination of at least 30°, and probably depart at a similar angle, making the charge-retreat pattern a letter v. 

Bringing the horns into it suggests differences in the way each tribe will (or can) apply such tactics, which IMG is MGF. Llamas and Impala are fast and the mount has no natural forward-facing weaponry (Impala in particular only kick backward) so there's more incentive to develop retreating shots.

As they are fantasy animals I wouldn't be surprised if God simply adjusted our seat and their back for a "natural" fit. In this scenario Praxians have several different ways of "walking funny" that we don't talk about because they are violent people who hate being laughed at. It also sheds light on why riding another tribe's mount is never preferable and possibly why the horse is so alien.

Of course I haven't been on a saddle in decades and just realized I know nothing of how the Apache, for example, adopted European tack shortly after digesting the possibilities of mounted warfare. What I really wonder is who in Glorantha can do an "Eskimo roll" and whether their boats have foot braces to make it happen.

singer sing me a given

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yikes double post. Hang on, I'll come up with some content. OK. Looking for the origins of the Malkionite equestrian tradition (where stirrups come from) I see that Sandy has already explored some of this in his Glorantha, which is cool. IMG advanced tack is of sorcerous origin, designed to humiliate and ultimately enslave the Galanini. As such it comes out of "magic." Traditionalist nomads understandably distrust it.

OH and there were centaurs once. They are known for their archery and can presumably fire over their shoulder in as wide an angle as the torso can twist. Pure Horse lives in close proximity to a surviving centaur culture (even if only Remade) so has probably copied whatever FHQ deems usable.

Edited by scott-martin
  • Like 1

singer sing me a given

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, scott-martin said:

Bringing the horns into it suggests differences in the way each tribe will (or can) apply such tactics, which IMG is MGF...

Indeed!

All of a sudden (as of this archery digression) in My Glorantha, there is a (mad?) genius Lunar Sable rader who has suspended an Imperial-supplied "Zhuge" style crossbow between the horns of his antelope...  I shall name him Thofenrich !!!   :D

 

  • Thanks 1

C'es ne pas un .sig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, scott-martin said:

Yikes double post. Hang on, I'll come up with some content. OK. Looking for the origins of the Malkionite equestrian tradition (where stirrups come from) I see that Sandy has already explored some of this in his Glorantha, which is cool. IMG advanced tack is of sorcerous origin, designed to humiliate and ultimately enslave the Galanini. As such it comes out of "magic." Traditionalist nomads understandably distrust it.

So you put the development/discovery of the stirrup into the Dawn Age conflicts with Galanini and Pralori (another major cavalry force near Tanisor), preceding the Gbaji War?

Galanini met (future) Pentan riders in the development that led to Argentium Thri'ile, fighting alongside Praxians. This would have been after encountering Seshnegi stirruped cavalry. How long did it take them to adopt/steal that equipment?

The question is who gets enslaved. If only the horse get's enslaved another bit, that's in keeping with the myth of the fiery, winged and beaked sky creature now bound to the ground.

 

1 hour ago, scott-martin said:

OH and there were centaurs once. They are known for their archery and can presumably fire over their shoulder in as wide an angle as the torso can twist. Pure Horse lives in close proximity to a surviving centaur culture (even if only Remade) so has probably copied whatever FHQ deems usable.

Interesting question here: Do centaurs have a single, continuous chorda in vertebrae, or does the human "half" sit on a similar construct as the human skull, able to twist what comes above about 75° to either side, possessing a separate chorda that somehow communicates with the horse chorda?

On the other hand, centaurs have only one pair of eyes, unlike the horse-archer who can leave terrain and neighboring horses observation to his mount while concentrating on the target.

Centaur biology has a couple of unresolved questions - like what is their diet, how does their dentition and mouth size correspond to the needs of a quarter metric ton body (assuming a pony-sized horse body rather than a charger or beer wagon horse), and do they just breathe through their noses or do they have gill-like slits around their human hips?

How much human anatomy is there in the human torso? I would expect a human stomach (able to regurgitate, unlike the horse part) preceding a second one in the horse abdomen, without any intestine in the human torso. A double set of lungs? A single heart in the horse body, or an additional one providing special service to the human brain and the upper lungs?

Which mammalia are functional in a centaur female? How do they give birth? Does the upper torso of the centaur foal come in some horse-head-like posture (possibly with a protective skin that is only broken after birth)?

Yes, of course centaurs are innately magical. Still, their foes as well as their doctors will know where to find the vitals, and how those are connected.

 

  • Like 1

Telling how it is excessive verbis

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, scott-martin said:

Bringing the horns into it suggests differences in the way each tribe will (or can) apply such tactics, which IMG is MGF. Llamas and Impala are fast and the mount has no natural forward-facing weaponry (Impala in particular only kick backward) so there's more incentive to develop retreating shots.

Given their broad similarity to giraffes, I wonder whether High Llamas sort of neck-wrestle with others of their species, and possibly have a flanking ram attack with those muscular lower necks. Such an attack may very well swipe a less high rider out of  his saddle.

High Llama riders don't use missile weapons. They use the longer range of their weaponry to achieve a similar effect.

1 hour ago, scott-martin said:

As they are fantasy animals I wouldn't be surprised if God simply adjusted our seat and their back for a "natural" fit.

You mean, like a knob on the back of these beasts, to plug in?

I wouldn't go adjusting steed and rider so easily. Like I said, non-Praxians ride those beasts as well, and without any known complications.

1 hour ago, scott-martin said:

In this scenario Praxians have several different ways of "walking funny" that we don't talk about because they are violent people who hate being laughed at. It also sheds light on why riding another tribe's mount is never preferable and possibly why the horse is so alien.

We do know that Praxian riding beasts are fairly common in Dragon Pass, at least in some distance of the plains of Prax. (Keeping herds of them on the Praxian border would be a direct invitation to be raided...) The Heortlings are able to ride those beasts without any special blessings of the Praxian deities (although they probably give service to Eiritha for the health of their mounts). No impalas, since there have been no reports of Heortling pygmies, but sable antelopes, bison and possibly high llamas are manageable.

 

1 hour ago, scott-martin said:

What I really wonder is who in Glorantha can do an "Eskimo roll" and whether their boats have foot braces to make it happen.

I don't know about any canonical Gloranthan culture using kayaks or double-bladed paddles. The Waertagi might, as light attack craft riding their tidal waves.

Canoes in the shape of dugout boats, and possibly also in animal skin on frames or exotic carapaces, are ubiquitious, but appear to use the single-bladed paddle.

 

  • Like 2

Telling how it is excessive verbis

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Joerg said:

So you put the development/discovery of the stirrup into the Dawn Age conflicts with Galanini and Pralori (another major cavalry force near Tanisor), preceding the Gbaji War?

Galanini met (future) Pentan riders in the development that led to Argentium Thri'ile, fighting alongside Praxians. This would have been after encountering Seshnegi stirruped cavalry. How long did it take them to adopt/steal that equipment?

The question is who gets enslaved. If only the horse get's enslaved another bit, that's in keeping with the myth of the fiery, winged and beaked sky creature now bound to the ground.

I do think the basic magical engineering is shockingly ancient in the West. When and whether it was ever cleared for mass horal (or talar) deployment is another story. We may have a new reason why the "knight" or "caballero / cheval / cavallist" is depicted on horseback in some Hrestolite sects who would logically be open to Galanini crossover. 

The question of who broke the Hippogriff and other divine horses is probably a sensitive one.

  • Like 1

singer sing me a given

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, scott-martin said:

I do think the basic magical engineering is shockingly ancient in the West. When and whether it was ever cleared for mass horal (or talar) deployment is another story.

From Hrestol's Saga and from the Arolanit descriptions, it appears that horse riding started out as a talar privilege unavailable to the horali caste.

Building magical tools for the enslavement of others does have a very long tradition in the west - one of these, imitating a mostali design, lies in the early stories of the Vadeli segregation.

6 minutes ago, scott-martin said:

We may have a new reason why the "knight" or "caballero / cheval / cavallist" is depicted on horseback in some Hrestolite sects who would logically be open to Galanini crossover. 

One reason why the Men-of-All of Hrestol were named knights in older sources is their use as elite (and presumably heavy) cavalry in battle. The Malkioni don't appear to use regular bows, but have standard issue crossbows. Those don't reload well on horseback.

6 minutes ago, scott-martin said:

The question of who broke the Hippogriff and other divine horses is probably a sensitive one.

Everybody did. That's sort of the point in the martyrium of the horse.

  • Like 1

Telling how it is excessive verbis

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, scott-martin said:

Bringing the horns into it suggests differences in the way each tribe will (or can) apply such tactics, which IMG is MGF. Llamas and Impala are fast and the mount has no natural forward-facing weaponry (Impala in particular only kick backward) so there's more incentive to develop retreating shots.

I agree. bear in mind that female impalas have no horns, but it's normally large bulls that are selected for mounts. Hunters often select cows as they are more manoeuvrable and have no horns. With sables the overriding factor in selection of mounts is the backward facing horns. For this reason, most mounts are cows with their shorter less curved horns. Bulls can have their horns realigned. After 1625, Only one of the three remaining sable phratries use bows, the other two use javelins. Prior to 1625, one of two destroyed phratries used bows, the other used javelins.

  • Thanks 1

-----

Search the Glorantha Resource Site: https://wellofdaliath.chaosium.com. Search the Glorantha mailing list archives: https://glorantha.steff.in/digests/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Joerg said:

High Llama riders don't use missile weapons. They use the longer range of their weaponry to achieve a similar effect.

Javelins still count as missile weapons.

screen-shot-2018-04-16-at-12.53.08-pm.pn

-----

Search the Glorantha Resource Site: https://wellofdaliath.chaosium.com. Search the Glorantha mailing list archives: https://glorantha.steff.in/digests/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...