From: RuneQuest-Request@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (RQ Digest Maintainer)
To: RuneQuest@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (Daily automated RQ-Digest)
Reply-To: RuneQuest@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM (RuneQuest Daily)
Subject: RuneQuest Daily, Fri, 23 Sep 1994, part 2
Sender: Henk.Langeveld@Holland.Sun.COM
Content-Return: Prohibited
Precedence: junk
---------------------
From: Argrath@aol.com
Subject: Martin Crim on Warhamster
Message-ID: <9409221316.tn81315@aol.com>
Date: 22 Sep 94 17:16:11 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 6334
Devin asks, in response to my bit about the Combat Factor in
Warhamster not taking into account tactics,
>Well, first, shouldn't those tactics you are talking about be
>representied by the miniatures themsleves and not in the CF? In
>other words, if the Hoplite tactics are so great, then the Sun
>Domers should use them by keeping their minis in formation et
>al. In other words, won't the benefits of a shield and
>Pike wall show through by the way the minis are setup and run?
Beats me. Like I said, I'm a former wargamer, not a miniatures
guy. If bunching the troops together like that gives you more
dice to roll against your foes, even if the individual skill
levels are lower, then it seems like you might get the
appropriate tactical effect. However, the Romans fought in open
maniples, not closed up like a phalanx (see below).
>Second, morale is a big factor in most battles, and well
>organized troops generally have better morale. Simply give
>hoplites and their ilk morale bonuses while in formation.
I don't think this is going to solve the problem, as it means
that the hoplites will (other things being equal) take heavy
casualties every time, they just won't run because of it.
Whereas the historical analogue shows that troops with decent
formations take fewer casualties. Quasi-Roman units should have
high morale, as the Romans were willing to take much higher
casualties than their opponents before routing. But that's not
the whole picture.
Sandy raises the same points, and agrees that the average
Barbarian was a better fighter than the average Legionary. I
think that in small groups, as well, the Romans often lost to the
barbarians. Oh, and Caradoc was (0-2), not (0-1).
Roman soldiers under the Monarchy fought in phalanxes, but
the reform of the army under the Republic resulted in the open
formation which served the Romans so well, on into the Imperial
period. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica (11th ed.),
"Much of its strength lay in the same qualities which made the
Puritan soldiers of Cromwell terrible--the excellent character of
the common soldiers, the rigid discipline, the high training."
The men were all citizens, mostly farmers, called up as needed.
In that period (when the Romans conquered Italy and neighboring
regions), there was no professional army.
From what we can tell, the army depended on maneuver and the
ability to bring up fresh troops while the front line retired in
good order. Perhaps this can be simulated by letting Legionaries
retreat through friendly troops with the same facing and/or
letting Legionaries advance through friendly forces without
becoming disordered. This makes the "bunched together look" much
harder to justify on historical grounds, but we know so little of
how the actual fighting occurred that we can stick with it if
nothing better presents itself. Maybe each little clump of
soldiers is bunched up, with gaps between maniples.
The Imperial Roman army recruited mostly from the citizens
of the provinces, but was organized much like the Republican
army. The auxiliaries became more important (or rather, became
important for the first time). The major difference was that the
army became garrisoned along the frontier and (for a period of
centuries) never called together. This is analogous to the post-
Nights of Horror Lunars, who face no equal enemies on their
borders.
I agree that fudge factors are not generally preferred. But
if we can abstract the Warhamster rules at a level where
individual fighting ability doesn't enter in, it'd be lots
quicker to resolve battles. At a level where one unit is 100
men, individual skill won't count for much. Drill, discipline,
and morale will. And you can roll a few dice, explain to the
players what their characters see happening, take that into
consideration (where appropriate), roll some more dice, and the
battle will be over quickly enough that roleplaying will not be
suspended.
--Martin
---------------------
From: Argrath@aol.com
Subject: M. Crim does not email RQ4
Message-ID: <9409221319.tn81540@aol.com>
Date: 22 Sep 94 17:19:59 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 6335
Folks--
RQ 4 is available only in printed format, and the distributor is not
mailing it out anymore. I have the version 2.0 which consists of nearly 400
kilobytes of stuff; I am not emailing it to anybody. I'm thoroughly sorry I
brought the subject up. If you want the Fatigue rules, I could send them to
people, if the number of requests is reasonable.
-Martin
---------------------
From: taz@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tarry Higgins)
Subject: "Violence is always and option"
Message-ID:
Date: 22 Sep 94 17:36:24 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 6336
In-Reply-To: <9409220716.AA10085@glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM>
My views on this saying are that I think that it's used (and abused) by
Orlanthi an a variety of different ways, depending on what that Orlanthi
wants to mean at the time. It's one of those sayings that just IS useful.
Because it can be used positivly or negativly depending on what the
sayer of it means it typifies Orlanthis and their culture precisly.
Regards,
Taz Higgins
---------------------
From: alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk (Alex Ferguson)
Subject: Re: Blue Menses (NB for MD)
Message-ID: <9409221727.AA00674@hawaii.dcs.gla.ac.uk>
Date: 22 Sep 94 17:27:56 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 6337
Nick exclaims:
> Mike, these subject lines will never catch on!
Many Moons ago, when I was Gently Encouraging Henk to do the
Subject-summary things (for which Yet More Thanks, Henk), I suggested it
might _encourage_ people to supply meaningful subject fields. Or at least
ones other than "stuff" or "Re: RuneQuest Daily Part " Fine
fool I look now, thanks guys.
> Alex parenthesises:
> > Unless Gloranthan menses happen in quadruple time, or are keyed to
> > some moon other than the obvious one, which would be more than a tad
> > unsettling.
> That's the thought that caused me to bring it up and discover the non-
> answer: "28 days is a mother-cycle, not a moon-cycle".
Greg must have been channelling lame answers at that point, or just
being delightfully bloody-minded. Has Greg said what the period of the
Blue/ any other pre-Red Moon was? I think it'd make _some_ sense to
have a Green Age moon interpretable a la Eastre, et al, subsequently
broken by Patriarchal Macho Bull Shit, though the B(aopR)M can obvious
not be the One True Fertility God, being a tad broke those days.
> > If [Pelandan] culture is preserved anywhere to any extent, it's in the
> > Generic Pelorian Farmer Culture, not the especially-stepped-on Oppressed
> > Carmanian Peasants, I think.
> Nah. The homelands of the old Pelandan culture were occupied by the
> Carmanians.
Yes, yes, we know. But other parts of the bowl could obviously have been
colonised either before or at the time of the occupation. Now, maybe
the Carmanians have left the Pelandan underclass intact, but that'd be
uncharacteristically Nice of them, really. (Sadly, I can't even remember
what G:G says about the religion of Carmanian serfs...)
> Pelandan =/= Pelorian.
I wasn't suggesting they were Equivalent, just a degree of similarity.
You have the advantage of me, Nick, from having scoured the
Entekosiad: are you Leaking that those myths are _not_ part of, or
compatable with, Pelorian Farmer Mythology? Not that I want to start a
Lodril =[/]= Spearman Raging Flame war, mind you.
> > I like to think of [Teleos folk] as being like a colour-coded EU.
> Greg put his foot in it (and swallowed) at Convulsion '92 when he gave as
> an instance of Teleos tribes' quote irrational unquote prejudices the fact
> that everyone hates the Greens 'cos they eat frogs.
I missed that one. Proof Positive that mine is the One True Analogue.
So what colour are the Teleos Belgians, then, if the Germans are purple
and the French are green?
> BTW, what's a bashed neep? No trollkin runelord connection, I hope!
Bashed neeps are mashed turnip, of course. A traditional accompaniment
to haggis, and even less edible.
Alex.
---------------------
From: alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk (Alex Ferguson)
Subject: Moon Spear
Message-ID: <9409221938.AA02885@hawaii.dcs.gla.ac.uk>
Date: 22 Sep 94 19:38:19 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 6338
Nick Brooke on Granite Phalanx and Moon Spear:
> Chris Gidlow (who wasn't credited for this fine write-up: black marks for
> the Megacorp!) hasn't written a description yet.
I did wonder; I'm filling his name in the blank in the Senatus's draft
Vote of Thanks even as I type. (Four Arms is a provenly safe, reusable
Chaos^H^H^H^H^H^HEmperor's Gift.)
> I'd run it as an exact
> parallel of Sunspear; [...] A 3-point reusable prestigious Rune spell.
I like the idea of "prestigious" as a rune spell descriptor; I imagine it
would mean "doesn't get given to run of the mill initiate plebs". As in
"Bless Thunderstone, ritual Enchant, stackable, prestigious, reusable".
> It's not quite as gross as it looks:
Be fair, it's pretty gross : this spell is particularly bad news for low
armour, high hp thingies. "Kills 95% all of all known cave trolls: dead!"
> (Anyone remember 'Scanners'?)
The image sprang to mind as soon as I read the words "4D6 to the head".
Alex.
---------------------
From: alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk (Alex Ferguson)
Subject: Kitori
Message-ID: <9409221939.AA02948@hawaii.dcs.gla.ac.uk>
Date: 22 Sep 94 19:39:51 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 6339
David Cake:
> My conception of the Kitori is that they are really two tribes with
> a very close alliance, a human Orlanthi tribe and a tribe of Uz. The
> cornerstone of the alliance is the symbolic marriage between the Chief of
> the Orlanthi, and the Queen of the Uz.
I'd say rather that they were a single tribe, composed of a number of
all-human, and some all-troll, clans. Amounts to much the same thing,
granted. I think I got the impression from someplace that there are
more humans than uz in the tribe, but I forget where.
> I conceived of them as being basically divine magic users, as well,
> the only really unusual thing being a great prevalence of Argan Argar
> worshippers.
I suspect that the Kitoi may blur species distinction to the point of
allowing the human tribesfolk to join Kyger Litor, though I'm not sure
this would be all that common. I feel sure their religion is some way
off the Orlanthi norm.
> Bernard suggested (and I think he may have got the idea from
> Joerg) that the Kitori are more sorcery using, and are basically Stygians/
> Arkati. I disagree, thinking that they are basically divine users, though
> probably with several sorcerous users among them (as is not unusual among
> trolls who venerate Arkat).
I'd say they were "Stygians", in that they have significant resources
of sorcery knowledge, in the context of theist worship. (Not in the sense
of being an IG worship heresy.) Though more will know rune magic than
sorcery, I feel. Presumably they are also "Arkati" in the sense of
worshipping Arkat (rather than in the somewhat bogus RQ:AiG sense of
"synonym for Stygian/henothesist").
> A related question is where exactly is the temple of Black Arkat
> (the human temple that teaches troll Arkati sorcery)? I think that it is
> not within Kitori lands, though Kitori troll Arkati may accept some human
> students.
I would have said that it was, apart from the confusing assertion that
_all_ its initiates are human. I can't think why there should be two
distinct lots of darkness-worshipping humans in Heortland, most of whose
residents are "otherwise accounted for". Most odd.
Alex.
---------------------
From: alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk (Alex Ferguson)
Subject: Rune Power
Message-ID: <9409221942.AA02987@hawaii.dcs.gla.ac.uk>
Date: 22 Sep 94 19:42:39 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 6340
Paul Honigmann takes a three-point swipe at Rune Power:
> 1. I always find that half the fun of Rune Magic is agonising over what to
> sacrifice for with *this* year's hard-won 2 spare POW points, and
> rejoicing / cursing later when you find you have spells appropriate, or
> not, to a problem. A pool of programmable magic would be too easy.
It may be fun (and nutritious if you're a masochist on a diet?), but is it
Correct? Do Gloranthans really sit around agonising about what to do with
those last two points of POW? What they do do, I think, is quest for
spells that they don't yet have (so for people with small amounts of rune
magic, no practical difference), and otherwise just participate in the general
worship, including sacrificing POW.
> 2. If everyone could fire whatever spells they wanted whenever they wished,
> - assuming they have recharged their pool - then EVERY Orlanthi will use
> almost EXACTLY the same spells in a given situation. Ie: commit everything
> to a huge Shield, Thunderbolt or Teleport out of there.
As to this latter problem, Rune Power Too has a fix for this; the maximum
number of points that can be stacked in a single spell is the number of
points that you sacrificed for that particular spell. So if you have
Shield III and Rune Power VI, you can cast three Shield III's, but not a
Shield VI or Shield IX. I think you exaggerate the same spell syndrome; if
there were clearly a Best Spell for each situation, sacrificing for spells
would be fairly stereotyped too.
> 3. It's powergaming.
Does anyone share my belief that the concepts of MGF and Powergaming are
asbout as dualistic as those of Nysalor and Gbaji, only much, much less
interesting and useful?
"It's MGF!"
"It's Powergaming!"
"Tis!"
"Tisn't!"
Alex.
---------------------
From: alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk (Alex Ferguson)
Subject: Praxians selling herd-beasts, and Truestone.
Message-ID: <9409222013.AA03134@hawaii.dcs.gla.ac.uk>
Date: 22 Sep 94 20:13:43 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 6341
Joerg Baumgartner challenges Sandy (it's a dirty job, but...):
> Who says that the Sartarite herders don't use the peaceful cut when
> they slaughter their cattle or sheep?
Ah, but do they use the Correct peaceful cut? Imagine a debate between
captive-bolt-stunners and Kosher/Halal advocates at this point.
And chipping in two pfennigs on Truestone:
> Magic Points are not involved at all under RQ3 rules.
They weren't involved in the RQ2 rules either, for obvious reasons. ;-)
> - Setting a stone: I'd rule that only spells the person touching the
> stone could actually cast at that moment are put into the stone. This
> would allow priests to retain a minimum of their reusable magic even if
> they fill the stone.
I agree that's what the RQ3 rules seem to imply. It also of course means
that the average unplannedly-set truestone will have even punier truestone
than would otherwise be the case.
> Biturian's stone must have been set with his
> repertoire of Rune spells already, but they had been cast from the
> stone. To activate the stone, Biturian cast his spells into the "slots"
> of the stone, and so gave her access to his magic.
This is a pretty thin rationale, but I'm not about to do better. I think
we have to fess up that RQ2 and RQ3 truestone rules are pretty incompatible.
Though having said that, I'm tempted to try and combine the two, anyway.
That is to use both the "sacrificing" magic into TS, and (reusably)
"casting" it models, and choosing between the two of the basis of (any
of) the Inherent Properties the the particular piece of TS; the nature
of the cult's magic; or heaven forbid, player choice. Of course you'd
only ever choose the "sacrificing" model if there were some other advantage
to doing so, such as the easier regaining some have suggested.
The key point balance-wise, I think, is that however you wangle it, you
don't end up with two instances of the same spell for a given "outlay"
of POW.
> So, who would profit from Truestone?
> Powergamers mainly, I'm afraid, although this includes heroes:
Note that heroes benefit from same not just because they are powergamers,
but because of the alleged use of Truestone on the heroplane. Which I
must confess always struck me as something of a RQ2 Rules Bodge. Anyone
think this rule is Convincing and Glorantha-Level?
> An unset Truestone is very handy if you plan to change your cult. Fill
> it with all your magic, and then be excommunicated or not, as long as
> you have the stone, you have the magic, and reusably so.
Rather unreusably so; since you're now an ex-initiate, you can't go back
to your old temple to worship, and hence to regain the use of the spell
in the truestone. Maybe you could get away with rejoining the cult at
another temple, but that'd be pushing it.
Alex.
---------------------
From: mmorrison@VNET.IBM.COM (Michael C. Morrison 8-543-4706)
Subject: RuneQuest Daily, Wed, 21 Sep 1994, part 1
Message-ID: <1994Sep22.145039.35261@vnet.ibm.com>
Date: 22 Sep 94 21:50:39 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 6343
*** Reply to note of Wed, 21 Sep 94 09:15:34 +0200
*** by RuneQuest-Request@Glorantha.Holland.Sun.COM
David Cake tries to start something ...
D> To get some Styx water (ever popular with those plagued
D>by vampires) can you just dip a bucket over the side, or do you have to pay
D>some sort of toll to Styx or some other guardian?
The most common approach I've seen is to fill every container you have
that can hold water with the Styx water ... then lose every one while
still on the Hero Plane. I've never been able to bring back more than
a very few drops. As it should be.
Another approach I can imagine is having to "fight" the spirit of Styx
to take some water from the River. This fight would be like a POW
resistance, but on a grander scale, probably using Hero Will. Your
Will against the River's ... The net result is you get none or only
a few drops. As it should be.
As for the River and what to do once there (I hear a travel commercial
starting) -- I've never sailed the river (not brave enough to stay in
Puzzle Canal during Sacred Time), and I've never taken a troll there
(fat lot of help I turn out to be!). I have been to the River, but as
part of other Quests. One of my NPCs fell in the River and was washed
away ... and hasn't been seen since! We assume he's dead ... And I do
believe that the Styx is the border to Hell -- many HeroQuests begin
and end there! As it should be.
Have we started yet? ...
Michael
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael C. Morrison IMS Information Development Tieline 8-543-4706
Santa Teresa Lab, San Jose, California (SWS) Phone (408)463-4706
Bitnet ID: MCM at VNET Fax (408)463-4101
Internet ID: MMORRISON@VNET.IBM.COM or USIB47H4@IBMMAIL.COM
IBM Mail Exchange ID: USIB47H4 at IBMMAIL or USIB4MCM at IBMMAIL
X.400 Address: G=mcmgm; S=morrison; P=ibmmail; A=ibmx400; C=us
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------
From: jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney)
Subject: Tactics and Warhamster
Message-ID: <9409230117.AA12071@sonata.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 22 Sep 94 15:17:24 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 6344
Uh, the whole point of a miniatures rules system is that tactics are NOT
to be abstracted. They are to be reflected in the density of the units
(base size) and the ACTUAL tactics and maneuvering used by the "commanders"
(the players).
Now, I've only glanced over it, but I should think that there is some sort
of morale bonus for units that train as soldiers vs. those that train as
warriors. Being able to swing a sword well is no sign that you'll stand
the line when the bad guys charge. That's a matter of discipline as much
as courage.
However, I would say adding numbers to abstract tactics completely defeats
the purpose of a miniatures rule set. Might as well not bother with movement
rules, etc. Might as well just have one die roll decide everything, no?
---------------------
From: alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk (Alex Ferguson)
Subject: Why is the sun broke, dad?
Message-ID: <9409230541.AA04511@hawaii.dcs.gla.ac.uk>
Date: 23 Sep 94 05:41:00 GMT
X-RQ-ID: 6345
David Dunham quibbles with my masterful answer of the question:
> >> If there is only one sun, then please explain why the Elmali do not get
> >> Sunspear?
to wit:
> >If you're asking me this with my Sartarite Elmali hat on, I'd say something
> >about how Yelm was a false sun god, and that his worshippers were all evil
> >Illuminants who got their fire powers from chaos demons, or some such.
[...]
> I think the answer would be somewhat different. Elmal is from the Fire
> Tribe, hence his association with the Sun. [...]
> There are bad fire gods and (a few) good
> ones. If having Sunspear makes you into an arrogant, pompous stuffed shirt,
> then it's a good thing Elmal doesn't have it.
This is a reasonable construction, but an obviously post-time one. Before
the Orlanthi contacted the Dara Happans, Elmal wouldn't have been "one of
the Fire Tribe", he would have been _the_ sun god. When they meet, they
aren't going to rationalise him as a foreign adoptee at once. But in any
case, the subtext is much the same: Yelm worshippers may get Sun Spear,
but they're arseholes, a poor tradeoff.
> Aside from pedantically taking this opportunity to point out that plurals
> never use an apostrophe (PC's means "of the player character")
Even more pedantically, this use is acceptable where the root word is an
acronym, or otherwise lexicographically weird. (Proscriptive grammarians
wishing to upset themselves could consider which of, for example "samurais"
or "samurai's" is the More Incorrect. (Of couse, "samurai" is correct,
hiragana fans.)
Alex.