Chaosiana & points of reference

From: danny bourne <d.bourne_at_dial.pipex.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 09:24:13 +0100


Steve Martin
Steve, yep I know I owe you a copy, but I don't have one myself. The galleys went to Chaosium (while Dan Barker was re-working on them) and there they stayed. So the only person who has a copy is Chaosium's filing cabinet and Dan Barker's disk collection. Ask him about it at Canada, he'll be able to tell you.

Alex Ferguson
I'm not sure about the needing to ask permission thing, I felt it prudent (bearing in mind what happened to [yet another Dan] Prentice who was threatened with legal action by Avalon Hill. (I hope you've got a lot of pipes, Alex ;) ) Chaosiana wasn't just RQ, it was supposed to be for ALL Chaosium games (including at least one article per ish on an OOP game). RQ was only a minor bit as we knew better than to meddle with that kettle of fish. You would have thought that they'd be a bit more forthcoming with a mag dedicated solely to their games.

Martin Laurie
Yep, you're completely right about the way armies organise - that's why I feel that the Lunar Army should be all conquering (with the exception of James Frusetta's trolls) because they're a proper combined arms force. If you equate magicians to tanks (high firepower, but brittle) then the lunar college of magic regiments is the way to go (cf Guderian), they also have quality heavy infantry (the phalanxes) quality cavalry (Char-un and the Grazers they hire) and elite skirmishers (thunder delta slingers). What more could they possibly need? The only thing that would crucify the Lunars would be over expansion and that they seem to be coping with admirably with their 'assimilate the local gods' routine - just as the Christians did all them years ago.

And you're also right about points of opinion, I agree completely. I just thought I'd like to give the 'let the good guys win' a go. But I will keep that separate from 'the official version of events', as it were.

I just get annoyed when people do the 'I know more than you about Glorantha because I've read everything there is twice and you haven't' attitude which appears occassionally. The root problem stems from the fact that history must be subjective because of the way people interpret things - this can be seen in the digest in the way that people argue and counter argue a point and then realise that what they thought someone said, they didn't actually say.

All hail the preaching moon and hurrah for Sheffcon 4 starting tomorrow.


Powered by hypermail