Nothing ever says that Humakti need to fight on foot. I suspect that Carmanian Humakti were armed and armored horsemen. Ditto for many Orlanthi Humakti.
Outlaws
Tricksters are not outlaws. They are outside the law. An Orlanthi "outlaw" is a person who is illegal -- a person who has been outlawed. A trickster is someone who _cannot_ be outlawed. While the trickster has no legal protection, he generally has societal defenses - -- the fact that he has no weregeld doesn't mean he can be killed with impunity. But a real outlaw not only lacks legal protection, he is actively hunted by the forces of authority.
If a trickster walks into a Geo's bar, he might be thrown out immediately, or at least carefully watched by the bouncer, but if an outlaw strolled in, swords may be drawn.
HUMAKTI INFERTILITY
Eric Scharf:
>>as far as I know, Humakt has never fathered a child.
Peter M.
>> Arkat Humaktsson.
Eric Scharf:
>This is akin to secret societies claiming deceased notables as
>ancestral members. I could call myself Humaktsson--it doesn't mean
>that the Big H slept with my mother.
The point is that ordinary Orlanthi see nothing odd about Arkat having been descended from Humakt -- ergo, ordinary Orlanthi (the culture from which Humakt's mythos and cult descend) do NOT equate Humakt with lack of fertility.
In fact, he is Death in the Service of Life, for them, and his destruction of the Well of Death one of the last acts in the Gods War (and the most important, for Humakti).
I (and Joerg, amazing enough) agree on Humakti being perfectly able to marry and have kids.
I submit that the DO NOT MARRY OR HAVE KIDS geas is, however, known among the Humakti. By the geas-oriented nature of their cult, they do NOT have to do all the horrible death-oriented things available to them. They can pick and choose.
Thus, I do not think Humakti must undergo a funeral ceremony and be dead to all their kin. But they can.
I do not think Humakti must forswear all descendants. But they can.
I do not think Humakti must accept their temple as their True Kin of Death. But they can.
James Polk
>Several people have suggested recently that a DH file of 6 soldiers
>and a commander (or spell thrower, whatever) would use a hexagonal
>+ center dot formation. This sounds fine to me for 7 people on
>their own. However, I wonder how effective this would be for an
>army. [long inaccurate explanation dropped]
It would be effective under certain limited circumstances. If the unit was not under attack, it would be a convenient formation for quick healing, casting spells, etc. If the unit was of peltasts, and was being swarmed by light cavalry (which must have happened reasonably frequently in the Pent wars), it would be a good way to protect your soldiers at the cost of mobility. It is also a good way to defend against elementals and similar attacks.
It would _not_ be useful to a hoplite formation in battle, and has not been suggested for same. For them, a 7-man file with the monitor in the back is perfect.
I think that all Lunar soldiers are trained in the hexagon formation, but that its use is limited primarily to non-combat situations.
>Sometimes I wonder if all our armchair designing is akin to the
>staff chappies sitting safely at HQ (or the War College) and
>dreaming up completely impractical ideas which look good only on
>paper.
Since none of us have the opportunity to fight in a genuine medieval battle including magic, what else can we do, besides make comparisons to actual ancient formations and then add estimates based on what we think magic would do?
I don't think the SCA is of much use for us here. First off, they do medieval, not ancient. Second, they don't really engage in mass actions. Their grand melee consists of a bunch of individuals on one side fighting a bunch of individuals on the other side. They don't even march in step. Nor do they fight on horseback (except rarely, and then they don't use actual battle horse tactics).
The SCA is good for many things -- such as the realization that shields make a huge difference in combat, and that all things being equal, longer weapons are better, but you have to keep backing up if your opponent tries to close.
Takehiro OHYA here.
>When you make some automatic spellcasting traps, is it enough to
>enchant Spell Matrix and Magic Point Matrix with Attack Condition
>and Link Spell Condition?
Yes. This is how I do it, because I like having automatic spellcasting traps.
>The point is, whether the subject of spell is necessary or not.
By "subject" apparently Takehiro means the caster.
>a) The first opinion is, "The subject is not necessary."
This is my belief.
>From this point of view, the base attribute for spell casting(a-1),
>impaling defensive spells(a-2) and resisting(a-3) become next
>problems in turn.
You successfully cast the spell when you put it in the matrix. Hence, I rule that a spell triggered by a matrix Always Works. I.e., "a-1-1) Spells are automatically casted."
>"a-2-1) Spells automatically impale all defensive spells like
> Shield."
>"a-2-2) It depends on "the total number of POW points used to
> enchant"(Deluxe Ed. p.140: Area-Effect Conditions)"
"Impale" the spell? This I don't get. If what you mean is what is the chance of the spell overcoming defensive magic, it is based on the magic being cast by the spell. In your 5-pt Venom example, there woudl be a 5-pt Sorcery spell striking defensive magic, unless your Trigger condition gave a Boosting ratio.
>a-3-1) The target cannot resist at all.
>a-3-2) The target can resist against "the total number of POW
points used to enchant"(Deluxe Ed. p.140)
The target resists vs. the MPs in the MP storage part of the
device. If there are none, it resists vs. 0 points.
>So I want to hear the wizard's opinion here. Help me please.
It is more fun to have inanimate spell-casting things on occasion. Hence I believe in them.
Mike Cule
>And I can't agree that the Mostali are not part of the Man Rune.
Nor do I. The Mostali themselves say that Mostal used Grandfather Mortal (or whatever their word for him was) as a "template" in designing the Mostali. What is this but an admission that the Mostali, like elves, uz, wind children, mermen, and even jelmre all descend from Wild Man?
Erich:
While the mortar & pestle approach is amusing I don't think it's
>appropriate for the dwarves as they aren't biological in the same
>sense as men, aldryami, etc.
Sez who? The dwarfs? If the dwarfs are not biological, then following a superficially similar mechanism to biology to create new dwarfs is also NOT biological. If the dwarfs are (secretly) biological, then it's all a big scam. Either way the dwarfs are not prevented from reproducing in like manner. We know that there are female dwarfs. We know that heretical dwarf colonies are able to produce offspring.
Erik Sieurin
lists a long synopsis of who got Death and when.
Your list has a few errors. Frex -- Eurmal ran around giving copies to _everyone_. Also, Eurmal didn't give the sword to Orlanth. Orlanth asked Humakt to lend it to him. And Humakt did, to his everlasting sorrow.
High King Elf killed Stone, not just a bunch o' dwarfs.
Finally Eurmal is handing copies of death (which can apparently themselves be copied) to everybody he can find, so that it is everywhere.
Any theory of how Earth (Maran Gor and Babs Gor) got Death?
>Does LM Sages think that Knowledge is unlimited? Ie, do they think
>it is theoretically possible to know everything? Do they think that
>the various areas of mastery are god-given?
I bet LM sages have decades-long flame sessions writing hot articles back and forth and debating in public on just this sort of question.
Powered by hypermail