From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V2 #193 Reply-To: rq-rules Errors-To: owner-rq-rules-digest Precedence: bulk Content-Return: Prohibited Return-Path: owner-rq-rules-digest RQ Rules Digest: Monday, 26 February 1996 Volume 02 : Number 193 TABLE OF CONTENTS David Dunham Humakti david@dboat.demon.co.uk RQ Rules Digest: V2 #190 Joaquin Tamargo Carbajosa [none] Nigel Smith Sorcery and Riding RULES OF THE ROAD 1. Do not include large sections of a message in your reply. Especially not to add "Yeah, I agree" or "No, I disagree." Or be excoriated. If someone writes something good and you want to say "good show" please do. But don't include the whole message you praise. 2. Use an appropriate Subject line. 3. Learn the art of paraphrasing: Don't just quote and comment on a point-by-point basis. When paraphrasing you demonstrate exactly how well you understand the point someone was trying to make. 4. There is no number 4. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: dunham@pensee.com (David Dunham) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 22:20:47 -0800 Subject: Re: Humakti Brad Furst wondered >Are Humakti expected to be antagonistic to Yanafal Tarnils cultists? I'm >expecting a possible confrontation in the local campaign, but I'm unsure >about stereotypic prejudices. Antagonistic, but not necessarily violent. >I think _G_o_G_, and other sources, declare that Swords of Humakt are also >Priests; does that mean that an initiate of Humakt must also qualify for >priesthood (10 points of divine magic) in order to become a Sword? Or is >this implication simply that a Sword may use whatever divine magic he has >(whether 10 points or fewer) in Reusable fashion? I've always assumed the latter -- by qualifying as a Rune Lord, the Sword also gets the benefits (and responsibilities) of a Priest. David Dunham Pensee Corporation dunham@pensee.com Voice/Fax: 206 783 7404 http://www.pensee.com/dunham/ "I say we should listen to the customers and give them what they want." "What they want is better products for free." --Scott Adams ------------------------------ From: david@dboat.demon.co.uk Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 12:02:52 +0000 Subject: Re: RQ Rules Digest: V2 #190 From: Brad Furst >Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 10:01:21 -0800 >Subject: Ernalda Rune Lords >I don't have all my texts with me at this moment. >.Although the RQII _Pavis_ "City Guide for the gamemaster" shows (on >page 15) that the Cult of Ernalda includes 5 Rune Priests and 3 Rune >Lords and 2 Rune Lord/Priests, ^^^^ ^^^^ In RQ II all cults had priests, lords. A priest could become a lord and a lord a priest. Thankfully this was dropped in RQ III. - --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ------------------------ David Boatright david@dboat.demon.co.uk - --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: u1432672@soneto.etsiig.uniovi.es (Joaquin Tamargo Carbajosa) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 12:05:43 +0000 (WET) Subject: [none] Help, I need idea, I need some adventure!!! ------------------------------ From: ns10005@cam.ac.uk (Nigel Smith) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 15:30:41 +0000 Subject: Re: Sorcery and Riding Sandy P: >RIDING: > The new Cambridge Military History has a section in which >Bacharach claims that mounted combat in medieval and ancient times >was actually quite rare, and quotes a number of battles in which the >knights charged the foe, only to stop their horses, get off, and >then engage in foot combat with the enemy. In essence, says >Bacharach, most knights were really dragoons. > NOTE: I don't buy his argument, based as it is on a few >specific cases rather than a general proof. BUT, it is rather >interesting that knights were evidently quite willing to fight on >foot -- the examples he gives are almost all cases in which the >opposing troops were fairly good infantry. Presumably when facing >other knights or unsteady infantry, they'd stay on horseback. How much of this would be a question of chivalry? Not knowing much about this, I could see that the knights might think it wrong to engage a foot-soldier from horseback. The other side of the coin is that a knight might be protecting his mount. He could expect another knight to hit him rather than his horse, but could he trust the peasantry to fight fair. Yet another time I wish that knew more than I do, Nigel ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V2 #193 ******************************* This is the bottom of the RuneQuest Rules Digest. RuneQuest is a trademark of Avalon Hill, and Glorantha is a trademark of Chaosium. With the exception of previously copyrighted material, unless specified otherwise all text in this digest is copyright by the author or authors, with rights granted to copy for personal use, to excerpt in reviews and replies, and to archive unchanged for electronic retrieval. Send electronic mail to Majordomo@hops.wharton.upenn.edu with "help" in the body of the message for subscription information on this and other mailing lists. WWW material at http://hops.wharton.upenn.edu/~loren/rolegame.html