From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V2 #212 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, 11 March 1996 Volume 02 : Number 212 TABLE OF CONTENTS Aden Steinke standard of medicine /Chalana Arroy raving Malcolm Cohen RQAIG weapon damages MUS_RDC@hal.lamar.edu RQ Rules Digest: V2 #206 MUS_RDC@hal.lamar.edu simplifying and special casing Richard Ohlson RQ Rules Digest: V2 #206 Kevin Rose Bows, arrows, etc 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: "Aden Steinke" Date: 11 Mar 1996 16:22:05 +1000 Subject: standard of medicine /Chalana Arroy raving Brian Pinh, aka the ghost who wanders... raved regarding standard of medicine /Chalana Arroy thus.... >My thoughts are that physical aspects of health are researched within the >Arroin subcult. And that they strive to improve their knowledge of how to >better help living things through physical methods including proper diet, >physiotherapy (approximates specialist first aid) etc. > >Antibiotics as a concept, though, would be unknown because of the differing >nature of disease. The effects of plants / potions etc help the patient fight >off the little disease spirits have the same effect but work by aiding the >patients spirit/power to fight off the effect rather than the body. Though some plants appear to bring arroin fairly close to magical healing. >A pacifist can find their place in any society. But can the threat of the >Questions of the White Moon Heretics used as a threat to keep a 'rowdy' CA in >line? Definitely raving.... pacifists have no place in many fine societies :)..... as letting your happy neighbourhood chaos monsters eat oneself would be a tad life shortening in some. Rowdy CAs can even be kept in line by your friendly local Troll. Aden ------------------------------ From: Malcolm Cohen Date: Mon, 11 Mar 96 11:00:16 MET Subject: Re: RQAIG weapon damages Well, I agree strongly with the > a) fists and wimpy weapons are too tough > b) limbs get chopped off way too easily. And I also think that RQ1/2/3 damage bonuses are broken, because of the bizarre huge step values. In RQ2 this was only a minor pain, but in RQ3 it exacerbates the quoted problems because the SIZ change (3d6 -> 2d6+6) meant that 40% or so of random characters got the +1d4 damage bonus. I have been running with the RQAiG mods since they came out (2 years I think) and although they do work they go too far. The rules I used previously were a bit similar to Steve Lieb's; they were: (1) limb-lopping is one multiplier harder (3x), but reaching the previous "limb lopped" point (2x) produced a "broken limb" (also cracked ribs). [Broken limbs cannot be put back together with spirit magic (though one can get the HP back, the limb is still cracked/broken). They must either heal naturally or have divine magic used on them (e.g. Heal Wound). This makes serious wounds meaningful for less high-powered groups without having too many one-legged etc. characters.] (2) Dagger was reduced from 1d4+2 [same damage expectation against unarmoured and leather wearers as a sword] to 1d4+1. (3) Damage bonuses were 25-26:+1, 27-28:+d2, 29-30:+d3, 31-32:+d4, 33-34:+d5, 35-36:+d6. [By smoothing out the damage bonus curve the only slightly above average fighter does only slightly above average damage. But a 31-32 fighter does +d4 in standard RQ as well as this, ditto 35-36:+d6. Although RQAiG smoothed this out nicely it also dropped the bonus slightly too much and the resultant constant bonuses were not very RQ-like.] (4) Characters go unconscious at 0HP, dead at -6HP (same as RQ2). [Another place where RQAiG went too far, though my players like it - it has saved their lives at least twice so far!] (5) Armour effectiveness reduced by 1 point at the top end (instead of RQAiG's 2 point reduction). [armour values up to 5pts unaffected, but tanks made slightly less invulnerable; RQAiG definitely went too far here] Based on my playtesting, I think that good results with minimal changes are obtained by simply doing: (1) limb-lopping at 3x (3) damage bonuses of 25-28:+d2, 29-32:+d4, 33-36:+d6, etc. [actually I quite like my version above, but some people hate strange dice like d5; just putting in the intermediate +d2 step produces good benefits without adding much complication or strangeness]. (4) characters go unconscious at 0, die at -1/2 CON [same as Steve Lieb; death at 0 is too brittle, -CON (RQAiG) is too much, -6 doesn't scale] At this point there is still no real need to change published scenarios; if a character in a published scenario has a damage bonus of +d4 just leave it as is (so they are slightly tougher than their STR stat suggests: so what. One could always add a point or 2 of STR if it became really necessary - e.g. if a player took over the NPC's character). Personally, I would rather also: (1) optional "broken" rule at 2x (2) reduce dagger from d4+2 to d4+1 (5) reduce top-end armour (which IMO became really gross in RQ3 compared with RQ2) by 1 point. These would be perhaps one (or two or three) changes too far for some, but would still not require any significant rewriting of published supplements. In fact when I run published scenarios I find no need to modify any of the stats (it is a different matter with the plot - since my world is not Glorantha I usually need to do serious damage to the plot and several characterisations to make them fit). Cheers, - -- ...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K. (malcolm@nag.co.uk) ------------------------------ From: MUS_RDC@hal.lamar.edu Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 11:54:57 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: RQ Rules Digest: V2 #206 We use a house rule that Armoring Enchantment can never more than double the armor of the item it is on... Just a thought... Roger Cline ------------------------------ From: MUS_RDC@hal.lamar.edu Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 12:28:27 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: simplifying and special casing Thank you for a long and well-thought reply. ------------------------------ From: Richard Ohlson Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 16:04:59 -0800 Subject: Re: RQ Rules Digest: V2 #206 At 11:54 AM 3/11/96 -0600, you wrote: >We use a house rule that Armoring Enchantment can never more than double >the armor of the item it is on... > Hm, and human natural armor=0. 0X2=0, so you can't enchant a person? That's too bad, I like werewoves with armour, and dodgers with armor... Though for items it makes lots of sense. Means you can enchant that iron plate helm a lot more than that silk vest. Rich ------------------------------ From: Kevin Rose Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 21:48:40 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Bows, arrows, etc This is both long and late, but it took a while to research and write. So ignore it if you don't care. > What does this have to do with the superiority of foot > archers over horse archers? A footman using a bow is, all things > being equal, more accurate and further-ranged than a horseman using > a bow. Even if the footman has an inferior bow, he can often beat > the horseman at his own game. > Foot Crusaders using cheap crummy bows regularly beat > mounted Saracens using composite bows. Some of the footmen had > longbows or crossbows, though, and of course their commanders > preferred this, when possible. Ok, lets look at this from the 50,000 ft level. For a missile armed force to win it must: A) Deliver effective fire into the enemy force B) Be able to keep the enemy inside the effective range of friendly weapons for enough time for friendly weapons to destroy it. While c) Prevent itself from entering or remaining within the effective range of enemy weapons for long enough for the enemy to destroy it. The main problem that foot archers have against horse archers is that they are only capable of the tactical defensive. They cannot bring the cavalry to blows. The cavalry only engages when it chooses to or if a clever enemy traps or tricks it. Or when the horse archers get overconfident or lose discipline. The English tactics in the hundred years war are probably the most obvious example. The infantry archers form up behind stakes, distributed lots of extra arrows and waited. Every time the French attack, get shot to pieces, and die. If you replace the French with Mongols and assume the Mongols use the same "charge forward in with a complete lack of control" tactics the English would probably win (although I have serious doubts that longbows really outrange as the Mongol bows, we will assume that the longbows outrange the comp bows.) But they wouldn't do that. More likely they would either launch a diversionary attack at the front while attacking strongly in the rear, or waiting and engaging the archers on the march, as was done at Patay in 1429. Without the extra arrows and defensive positions foot archers die against cavalry, as they cannot prevent the cavalry from reaching hand to hand combat. A bow is vastly inferior to a saber or a lance at 5 ft range. Horse archers are more mobile both tactically and strategically, allowing them to accept, force or deny battle on a heavier force. The worst possible combination has typically been heavy cavalry and infantry archers. The cavalry has a tendency to run o ff after the enemies light cavalry, thereby separating itself from its missile troops. The normal result is the destruction of the heavy cavalry by missile fire, while the infantry then gets destroyed by missile and shock action. Infantry archers have a further significant limitation, which is ammunition supply. Infantry archers normally carried 20 to 50 arrows, while horse archers carried 60 to 200 arrows. As an archer in contact can fire at least 10 arrows a minute, infantry archers are out of action quickly unless they are in a fixed position with additional arrows provided. The greater mobility of cavalry also allowed the horse archers to resupply themselves more efficiently, as happened at Carrhae, while Mongol remounts carried full quivers. The effects of this can be seen in the battle of Gaza, where the crusader crossbow men ran out of bolts and died. At Poiters and Agincourt the English archers also ran out of arrows and joined the battle as light infantry. Against a somewhat more tacti cally sophisticated enemy they would have lost at Poiters. Horse archers have certain limitations. For example, they are, normally, lightly armored at best. This results in they and their horse being more vulnerable to injury than armored infantry archers. Crusader infantry archers were able to stand against the Arab horse archers because the Arab bows were unable to reliably penetrate the infantry armor. That's why there were crossbow men who looked like pincushions, uninjured with 10 or more arrows stuck in their armor. The Arab cavalry couldn't close in and destroy them because the crusader cavalry protected the infantry, while the crossbows and bows of the crusaders inflicted serious losses on the Arab cavalry, particularly on their horses. If the crusaders could prevent a maneuver battle they would win. Crusader cavalry was incredibly lethal in close combat and all crusaders tended to have sufficient armor to be difficult for the light Arab bows to kill. The Arabs were more mobile, but we re quite vulnerable to arrow and crossbow fire. If the Arabs could produce a battle of maneuver they would isolate the crusader cavalry from the missile troops and slaughter the cavalry and infantry sequentially. This happened fairly regularly. For an amusing example of the power of infantry archers versus horse archers, consider Manzikert. The Byzantines had lots of foot archers and heavy cavalry, the Turks lots of horse archers. Romanus could never apply significant force against the Turks, as they retreated away from him. (the destruction of the Byzantine army in this battle was not caused by any particular Turkish superority, but by loss of cohesion later in the battle. It should have been an indecisive battle.) If we assume a mix of shock cavalry and missle troops, one side with foot archers and cavalry, the other with horse archers and shock cavalry: Infantry archers cannot A) deliver fire onto an enemy force unless the enemy choses to engage. B) Keep the enemy inside effective range unless the enemy chosses to remain in the killing zone. C) Keep, by themselves, the enemy from closing on and destroying the archers. The cavalry accomanying them can, however. Infantry archers can, assuming equivalent weapons to horse archers A) Prevent lightly armored units from closing on themselves as long as the infantry is in a static (or nearly static) defensive position. (although they failed to do this at Manzikert) B) Kill lots of horses that advance at them in mud up to the fetlocks. c) Protect its cavalry as long as the cavalry doesn't act as cavalry and manuver. Horse archers can, assuming equivalent weapons to infantry archers A) Prevent the easy movement of supplies and troops, as any column needs to be escorted with large numbers of foot archers and cavalry. B) Destroy any shock cavalry that becomes seperated from the infantry archers. C) Refuse to accept battle on terms favorable to the infantry archers. D) Destroy any infantry force that gets caught without the many minutes necessary to deploy and distribute arrows. E) Force battle at any time it feels appropriate. F) Accompany and support the shock cavalry into action. Economics and cultural issues affect the availablity of horse archers. All the forces I know of were horse nomad orginally. (Even the Byzantines, who used Huns as their light cavalry, later other central asian nomads. Their heavy cavalry, while carying a bow, were too ponderous to really act as normal horse archers. They had heavy firepower, but significantly reduced mobility.) In addition, European military culture resisted the use of the bow. For example, Charlemagne reintroduced it as a miltary weapon. Soon after his death it was abandoned again. > Slings do just fine against cavalry, as the Spanish found > in the Americas, and the Persians vs. the Cretan mercenaries. And the Spanish were using what weapons? Lances, swords, crossbows and smoothbore guns? This demonstrates what about horse archers? Crassus in 53BC had four thousand slingers and foot archers with him when he engaged the Parthians at Carrhae. They, along with his seven legions and 4000 Gallic cavalry, mostly died or were enslaved. Perhaps five thousand escaped. 38,000 Romans and auxiliaries were lost. The only time the sling has been particularly successful against horse archers (that I'm aware of) was when it was used by the Romans against the Parthians in 38BC, at the battle of Gandarus. The Romans defended a fortified camp against the Parthians. The Parthians, taking casualties from the slings, apparently broke formation and closed on the Romans. The Romans, standing on a steep hill, destroyed them. While this was made the Romans feel good and protected Syria, it basically shows that horse archers do poorly in hand-to-hand attacks on heavy infantry in field fortifications. The slings did a lot of damage (killing the Parthian commander, among others) but this success was never to be repeated. Following up on this victory Marc Anthony decided in 37BC to conquer Parthia. He took 70,000 to 120,000 men with him. Perhaps 12,000 died, under Statianus, defending the baggage train. Several thousand more were killed for the lost of 80 Parthians in a skirmish. Ultimately he retreated 280 miles to Armenia, conducting some 18 separate defensive actions. 15,000 more Romans died on the retreat. I'm not certain how many foot archers and slingers he had with him, but he had some 15-30,000 auxiliaries wi th him so I would expect he had many. It didn't help. He knew about the victory, but obviously couldn't duplicate Gandarus, suggesting it was a fluke. The Romans had good success in containing the Pathians. (Parthian siege skills were apparently not impressive.) But only Severus, in AD 195, actually took major cities in Parthia. The Parthians, with that exception, were quite successful in preventing the Romans from invading Parthia successfully. Not many states resisted the Romans for 270 years, defeating at least three major invasions. Slings were significant exactly once in these 270 years. The sling is not a major weapon. Name five battles where it was decisive. It is shorter ranged, requires more space to shoot, is slower to fire, and is even harder to learn to use than a bow. It is cheaper, but that is it's only advantage. It is a weapon of people with a LOT of time on their hands, which is why it is typically a shepherds weapon. ______________ Will said > > I don't know where I read it, but for a report I wrote years ago on the demise of armor I read that there was a recorded instance of an arrow fired from a long bow at 200 yards penetrating the plate mail of a mounted knight's thigh, going through his th igh, coming through his armor on the underside, piercing through his two inch leather saddle, and killing his mount. Sounds like pretty good penetration to me. As you said earlier in your message, this could very easily be attributed to the velocity the arrow picked up on its descent. > I remember seeing mention of the instance. It was told by William de Braose, who was a Norman lord dealing with the Welsh. The man was wearing mail. Anyway, an arrow will be moving slower at 200 yards that it is at 10 yards. It cannot gain more velocity than it lost in gaining altitude. Loss due to air friction prevents this. Sandy found a report by Peter Jones that had a set of tests in it using simulated plate armor. His tests indicated that at short range it is probable that a low obliquity shot against a limb will penetrate, but penetration of the torso armor would be rare and head armor almost unheard of. If you can increase the incident angle a significant amount arrows will not penetrate, the shafts shattering instead. Rocky Russo discussed a bunch of experiments that had been conducted with bows against armor. Chain, even very high quality quadruple link chain, was penetrated at 50 yards by some variety of selfbow. I have read that the arrows of the Florida Indians (reed arrows with flint tips) penetrated Spanish breastplates. An 18th century Jesuit reported that arrows from the Apaches (but more likely Yaki) Indians penetrated the shield, bedroll, leg, and saddle of a Mexican soldier, going deep in his horse. None of these bows had the power of an English longbow or central asian composite bow, but the armor was probably not designed to resist arrows. If you fire enough arrows, you will injure and kill men in heavy armor. However, possibly not enough to matter. I've been told that there was no case in the War of the Roses in which the line of battle did not contact and decide the issue, despite the enormous numbers of archers were used by both sides. This either indicates that the archers neutralized each other, armor was too good , or that the archer quality was quite low. (The armies of the Hundred Years war selected the best archers in England. The War of the Roses used the local archers.) I'm not certain what the answer is. ___________ William said: > I'd also like to add these (I haven't seen any previous comments along these lines): What happens when a bow or string breaks? > > I understand that a composite bow tends to delaminate when the string breaks. Throw it away and get your spare. At best it need professional attention. Bow strings were built by professionals for this reason. > > If the bow breaks, chaos ensues... Someone (OOPS! deleted the file too quickly! Sorry whoever you are) commented that if an ultra-heavy crossbow string broke the crossbow would probably disintegrate and kill the archer. In my experience HE'D be sa fe, but the two guys either side of him would eat bow limb My worst case was a top limb breaking at full draw and zapping off over my head very glad I wear my baseball caps right way round (the peak kept the string off of my face)! > That was me. I was actually thinking of the bow breaking, but, due to the way a crossbow is shot, I would expect that you would be highly likely to catch the string across your face. This would probably rip you up a lot. The "string" on a heavy crossb ow was more like a thin rope. > Also, any wooden or composite bow (using 'ancient' glues anyway) kept strung for a long time will warp into the strung (curved) shape and loose power (you're not bending it as far if it starts off more bent than it should be), especially if damp. Some longbow competitors even unstring their bows between 3-arrow ends. Any character wandering around ready to shoot off an arrow at a moment's notice should be HEAVILY penalized after an hour or so, or any rainfall (knock off a point or two damage and a bit of range - say 1 point and 10 m per hour strung). Aldryami are an exception in my campaign - their bows string themselves when needed in my opinion> I've seen mention somewhere that Turkish composite bows don't do that. It was claimed that one was kept strung for years, except to change strings and worked fine. With the Mongols the bows on all his ponies were supposedly kept strung when battle was expected, used as the archer changed horses. The cases (the ones they use when hunting or at war)used by people who use composite bows are designed to hold the bow strung. This indicates to me that you can carry a strung comp bow for at least hours with no effect. I've read and been told that the Mongols did, in fact, carry their bows unstrung and protected from weather, and it does make sense. (Though the travel case would be pretty damn big and clumsy.) But I've never seen any historical evidence that this was actually the case. I would have expected someone to have mentioned if one of the numerous Mongol laws talked about protecting bows, but maybe I'm expecting too much or haven't read the right sources. I've also seen the glue used by the Mongols described as similar to knox gelatin for moisture resistance. (Which is not very good) However Stone reports that Turkish bows were covered in decorated leather to protect from moisture. It is pretty clear that warm, dry composite bows are more effective than frozen, wet bows. Exactly how much is questionable. Hungary, Russia, and Turkey all (in the 20th century, at least) get 20-40 inches of rain per year so it seems clear that the glues, at least as used in bows, were not horribly sensitive to humidity. As many of the Mongol battles were fought in winter and the Mongols preferred to campaign in winter, when the rivers were frozen [Kiev was captured by storm on December 6, 1240. The Battle of the Sil River was on March 4, 1238 in Russia. The invasion of Eastern Europe was started by the crossing of the Volga in December 1237. The actual invasion of Western Europe started about Christmas 1241, with the crossing of the Danube.] it is a safe assumption that the Mongol's bows worked pretty well in very cold weather. ___________ Mongols in general The Mongols won because they were highly disciplined experts at maneuver war, with very hardy soldiers who had mastered a very difficult and lethal weapon. It was not because of some innate superiority of missiles Vs shock or infantry Vs cavalry. You could put Napoleon's or Frederick the Great's armies in place of the Russians or Hungarians and they still would been slaughtered. Not until the middle-late 19th century would the Mongols under Subotai have run into a European army they couldn't effectively fight and defeat. Kevin, who intends to drop this topic now. ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V2 #212 ******************************* 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