Hmm. If not for that very strongly stated 'even if' to stress its
hypothetical nature,
one interesting (no doubt unintended) interpretation of this might
be to say that original version (with spell restrictions) is the official
cult sanctioned 'truth', while my versions (restrictions removed) is the
actual observable facts. Which certainly has some amusement value.
I was thinking more of Phalnx members (PCs for example, or soldiers caught out of formation (ambushed?)) wanting to use their spells in whatever situation they find themselves in, rather than members charging merrily out of formation. I still think they should have good reasons to stay in formation if they can (like avoiding getting their arms chopped off).
> Besides, the magical interpretation has one great advantage over "Two Handed
> Spear With Shield" skill (Cults of Prax; Sun County). The hoplite phalanx is
> essentially a group formation, but the old skill write-up was for use by
> *individuals*, not taking the special nature of the shield-wall (protect your
> neighbour, receive support from the man behind you) into account at all. The
> spells have the considerable virtue of simulating this in a fairly simple way.
>
But I think your shield wall rules ideas where an even better way of simulating that, Nick. (maybe flattery will get me somewhere?) I agree that 2H S&S being written for individual use is a problem, and the problems have definately been noticed by my Yelmalion character.
and Pam Carlson leaps into
> the interesting Hoplite-Humakti debate - about the uniqueness
> of spells:
>
... stunned that other people desribe the debate as interesting
> > Then why should they have magics that only
> > work on appropriately formationed Hoplites?
>
> 'Cause they're hoplites! They learned their (Standfast, Endurance,
> Heal)spells as hoplites. Sure, they can use them in other circumstances
> too, but their formost use is to support hoplites. (Just like you can use
> an assault rifle to kill commies _or_ hunt deer!)
>
Pam seems to be doing her best to sound like she is disagreeing with me while actually agreeing with me. I agree absolutely.
> > Does Berserk say 'only to be cast on a Storm Bull berserk charging
> towards the enemy', or a Humakti bladesharp spell work only on the swords
> that are in the hand of a Humakti soldier? No, and I should hope not.
>
> But there _is_ no spell called "Beserk". The spells are called "The Rage of
> the Bull", or the "Final Charge of Zorak Zoran", or the "Death Dance of
> Shargash", or the "Babeester's Revenge". Only an unspeakable Godlearner
> would call them the same spell.
I was referring to the Bulls gift of Divine Rage, vulgarly calls Storm Bulls Berserk
> And only a fool would want that spell
> unless he had committed himself to one of the above deities - and so it
> should only be cast on Storm Bulls charging toward the enemy, etc.
>
though I feel that it is not unknown for those with insufficient dedication
to the Bull (but who nevertheless have some connection to the cult), to find
that the Gift of the Bulls Rage is bestowed on them. Sometimes as a followup
to the almost as great gift of courage to Face Chaos. Oddly, many of them
seem to object to the Storm Khans generosity (I can't understand why, as its
almost a free ticket to the Eternal Battle, an enormous boon to the unworthy).
Can I just mention that Roberts thoughts on tatooing and bodypiercing where extremely nifty?
Cheers
David
Powered by hypermail