Zornhau Forums

You know the drill.

Errors go here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k6- ... sp=sharing

Since this doesn't seem to be an error (If I got this right), I will write this here.

Regarding Codex Crossbows, on p.154, specifically the reloading mechanisms, each and everyone apart from windlass and cranequin state to what structural types it applies, and not one is to heavy crossbows. Which leaves us with those two I identified above, which I presume apply to said Heavy Crossbows. So basically its a choice between +1 to reload and gaining "Foot". To make this clearer, and systematically more coherent, those two methods should also identify to what structural type they apply, in this case mainly to "Heavy Crossbow", with something like:

- "Windlass (Gains Foot. Bulk 1, built into or applied to the crossbow, designed for Heavy Crossbows, can be applied to all)"
- "Cranequin (RLD:+1 Bulk 1., designed for Heavy Crossbows, can be applied to al)"

Somewhere, probably the credits page, the text should state which version it is. 0.2.1 or whatever.

I’m pretty sure I’m reading the most recent version but I had to check the download date to make sure.

Errors signaled at Doc:

- pg157, Sling.
- pg162, missing "up" in sentence.
- pg166. Table 57 - Connections - Service is… missing a line for the last parameter, and the requisites for the last two need to be switched.
- pg180 - An "s" too much.
- pg182 - a word too much (either makes or declares).
- pg191 - Remove the "I" from the First word on the 1st line of the gray box "Reach and Terrain".


PS: will update this entry.

Also regarding Ranged Weapons, specifically Ammunitions, on page 159, a doubt has arisen:

"Arrows and Bolts, Military. R1 per clock.
Long Bodkin. Sharp, thin arrowhead. Maille Piercing, but -2DR vs plate.
Stout Bodkin. Short, heavy. Gains Penetrating."

Is this second entry, "Stout Bodkin", correct, or should be read "Stout Bolt", for crossbows. Otherwise of this two entries one is completely moot... I would think the vast majority would obviously adquire "Stout Bodkin" to gain penetrating instead of the minor benefit (and penalty) of the Long Bodkin, since they both cost the same, and apparently have no effect on range (for instance), or any other relevant parameter.

thorgarth wrote: ↑01 Dec 2018, 19:12 Also regarding Ranged Weapons, specifically Ammunitions, on page 159, a doubt has arisen:

"Arrows and Bolts, Military. R1 per clock.
Long Bodkin. Sharp, thin arrowhead. Maille Piercing, but -2DR vs plate.
Stout Bodkin. Short, heavy. Gains Penetrating."

Is this second entry, "Stout Bodkin", correct, or should be read "Stout Bolt", for crossbows. Otherwise of this two entries one is completely moot... I would think the vast majority would obviously adquire "Stout Bodkin" to gain penetrating instead of the minor benefit (and penalty) of the Long Bodkin, since they both cost the same, and apparently have no effect on range (for instance), or any other relevant parameter.

Stout bodkins don't exist in a time before plate armor was predominant. If your campaign is set in the 12th century, there are no stout bodkins.

thorgarth wrote: ↑01 Dec 2018, 19:12Is this second entry, "Stout Bodkin", correct, or should be read "Stout Bolt", for crossbows.

Afaik bodkin is a type of arrow head. Meaning for RAW/RAI purposes you can use them for bows (arrows) or xbos (bolts). You should specify tho if its an arrow or a bolt bundle. They are not the same.

Sample bolt head designs:

Benedict wrote: ↑02 Dec 2018, 07:54

thorgarth wrote: ↑01 Dec 2018, 19:12Is this second entry, "Stout Bodkin", correct, or should be read "Stout Bolt", for crossbows.

Afaik bodkin is a type of arrow head. Meaning for RAW/RAI purposes you can use them for bows (arrows) or xbos (bolts). You should specify tho if its an arrow or a bolt bundle. They are not the same.

Sample bolt head designs:

Benedict although I'm not a specialist in ranged weapons, medieval or otherwise, I do know that a bodkin is a type of arrowhead. I was trying to analyze the two entries from mechanical (system) point of view and it didn´t make much sense to me without further information, namely the note Agamemnon gave in his last post. Its matter of "technology" available in a given era. To help those less schooled in this subjects simple annotations that state something like "Introduced to counter plate armor as it becomes more common in the battle field" makes it much more understandable to players and GM alike, even in terms of world building and the availability of certain equipment in different cultures.

And thank you both.

Something I would absolutely love to do but would be a ridiculous amount of work for the benefit:
Get some kind of chart set up that can be shoved in an appendix that loosely describes "gear availability by era" to help people who aren't history buffs get that smallswords don't really exist during the height of full plate and you didn't see 9th century vikings with halberds, etc. It'd be a _ton_ of research, though, and is made slightly more complicated by the fact that we have weapon codices rather than set weapons.

Agamemnon wrote: ↑02 Dec 2018, 19:15 Something I would absolutely love to do but would be a ridiculous amount of work for the benefit:
Get some kind of chart set up that can be shoved in an appendix that loosely describes "gear availability by era" to help people who aren't history buffs get that smallswords don't really exist during the height of full plate and you didn't see 9th century vikings with halberds, etc. It'd be a _ton_ of research, though, and is made slightly more complicated by the fact that we have weapon codices rather than set weapons.

I wouldn't call it a high priority by any stretch of the imagination, but I think a short appendix primer sort of thing for weapons-and-armor-stuff-by-era would be a big help to people who aren't coming to the game from a background in hoplology. It obviously isn't even anything more than a guideline, but it would be beneficial to a lot of folks to see up-front "Yeah stout bodkins weren't kicking around during the Crusades" and things like that.

thorgarth wrote: ↑02 Dec 2018, 18:30Its matter of "technology" available in a given era. To help those less schooled in this subjects simple annotations that state something like "Introduced to counter plate armor as it becomes more common in the battle field" makes it much more understandable to players and GM alike, even in terms of world building and the availability of certain equipment in different cultures.

Some notes.

• Similar to bodkin design bolts were things in Asia where they never really bothered with plate armor centuries before Europe picked up that thing. Meaning that when going for a historic approach it depends on the time and the place.
• Having simple annotations that state real world historical analogies in a rulebook is neat, I'm unsure if it belongs in the core rulebook.
• As for world building, its a double-edged sword if you ask me. On one hand it frees you from research on your own. On the other it creates all sorts of silliness from players saying "dude, bodkins are there to defeat plate", when you are making a fantasy world that has no plate armor but is full of bodkin arrowheads.

Benedict wrote: ↑03 Dec 2018, 13:16
[*]Having simple annotations that state real world historical analogies in a rulebook is neat, I'm unsure if it belongs in the core rulebook.
[*]As for world building, its a double-edged sword if you ask me. On one hand it frees you from research on your own. On the other it creates all sorts of silliness from players saying "dude, bodkins are there to defeat plate", when you are making a fantasy world that has no plate armor but is full of bodkin arrowheads.[/list]

If it doesn't have plate (or similar construction armor) then it defeats the purpose of creating such an arrow in the first plate. Weapons and armor evolution come hand in hand. Though I'm sure some players would try it just for kicks, on that you are right. On the other hand I would respectfully ask the players hence that arrows came from, their purpose and how did he came about them. A design of a bygone era, where heavy armor was ubiquitous? Surely that deserves an adventure just to get to the bottom of it...

What we hinted at regarding some useful information for the less historically inclined among us were simple annotations with useful information regarding some less known gear and equipment. Like Landwalker wrote, an appendix with some info would be nice, though, yes, its far from a priority.

thorgarth wrote: ↑03 Dec 2018, 14:15If it doesn't have plate (or similar construction armor) then it defeats the purpose of creating such an arrow in the first plate

Ahem. Tell that to the Chinese and the Koreans.

Benedict wrote: ↑03 Dec 2018, 13:16

• Similar to bodkin design bolts were things in Asia where they never really bothered with plate armor centuries before Europe picked up that thing. Meaning that when going for a historic approach it depends on the time and the place.

Benedict wrote: ↑03 Dec 2018, 15:46

thorgarth wrote: ↑03 Dec 2018, 14:15If it doesn't have plate (or similar construction armor) then it defeats the purpose of creating such an arrow in the first plate

Ahem. Tell that to the Chinese and the Koreans.

Benedict wrote: ↑03 Dec 2018, 13:16

• Similar to bodkin design bolts were things in Asia where they never really bothered with plate armor centuries before Europe picked up that thing. Meaning that when going for a historic approach it depends on the time and the place.

They always had a thing for heavy, rigid, armors, both for infantry and cavalry. They used several varieties of plates, from breastplates to smaller plaques, to lamelar, etc, som arrow heads with a similar design made sense.

thorgarth wrote: ↑03 Dec 2018, 18:11They always had a thing for heavy, rigid, armors, both for infantry and cavalry. They used several varieties of plates, from breastplates to smaller plaques, to lamelar, etc, som arrow heads with a similar design made sense.

"Varieties of plates". Heck no. Unless you are referring to shite like disc or mirror armor. That's the closest thing to plated (read, PLATED not PLATE) armor, and still not that far. RAW this shite is represented by segmented armor (3MR). Which also models things like lorica squamata/lamellar/scale, lorica segmentata/laminar, coat of plates, and brigandine armor.

If you are to argue that this kind of technology accounts for the creation of bodkins you'll also have to prove that the Romans had created bodkin arrowheads to counter it. Afaik they didn't.

Before you link a pic of tosei dō gusoku (samurai modern armor) - especially wasei nanban dō gusoku (western style armor) - I had a reason I said earlier "tell that to the Chinese and the Koreans". The Japanese adopted western firearms from the Portuguese, hence they started a similar arms race to Europe, requiring armor able to beat said firearms. While their continental neighbors had superior artillery to European firearms centuries before Europe. Hence they never bothered with said kind of armor.

A final point you should consider is that plate armor in Europe was developed due to tactics. Plate full harness armor was for cavalry mostly. Infantry discarded almost everything but the cuirass and helm. Asian cultures had different tactics of warfare, hence different needs in armor.