Zornhau Forums

There was a minor mix-up in the last version of the document. Rather than the final version, I uploaded the last of Higgin's revision docs, red pen and all. Things get a bit hectic here on release day.

Version 0.1.4a is now in the downloads section. This is both the correct version of the file and also incorporates some of the feedback we got yesterday.

Sorry for the mix-up,
~Malloy

TYPO (or not?):

Warhammer description states that it has Maille Piercing (Thrust) trait. But its DR reads that it has 1b Thrust damage. Can Blunt damage can even be Maille Piercing??

Siggi wrote:TYPO (or not?):

Warhammer description states that it has Maille Piercing (Thrust) trait. But its DR reads that it has 1b Thrust damage. Can Blunt damage can even be Maille Piercing??

I think the Maille Piercing apples to the swing attack dealing thrust damage, specifically.

As I understand, there's no such term in a game as "thrust damage". There are two types of attacks: swings and thrusts, and three types of damage: cutting, piercing and blunt. So the entry under Warhammer still makes no sence.

Siggi wrote:As I understand, there's no such term in a game as "thrust damage". There are two types of attacks: swings and thrusts, and three types of damage: cutting, piercing and blunt. So the entry under Warhammer still makes no sence.

My bad, i meant "swing attack piercing damage"

nemedeus wrote:

Siggi wrote:As I understand, there's no such term in a game as "thrust damage". There are two types of attacks: swings and thrusts, and three types of damage: cutting, piercing and blunt. So the entry under Warhammer still makes no sence.

My bad, i meant "swing attack piercing damage"

I think the typo is that it should be 1b,0p/1p -- for r4 it has a hammer, beak, and awl as that's the one I as looking at at the time. In hindsight, for the purposes of the examples, I'll probably just drop the awl and make the profile

Warhammer | 1b,0p/0b | Medium | r3 | 1.5h, Crushing, Hook, Plate Piercing (Swing)

Now that makes sense! So there was a typo, in fact, and it's no more.

I must say that this customizable DIY weapons system is really cool! And mind you: no one's complaining about the length of that tables!

Just a small example here. I learned about such weapon as goedendag back when I was reading The Flower of Battle. The versatility and power of this weapon impressed me greatly. And now I see goedendag in your codex of arms and I wonder: how did they make it? So I look at the tables, pick the right options and there I have it, – exactly as you've put it and much in line with the description of this weapon's real life qualities. That was the moment that I saw the gears at work. Clever design.

Siggi wrote:Now that makes sense! So there was a typo, in fact, and it's no more.

I must say that this customizable DIY weapons system is really cool! And mind you: no one's complaining about the length of that tables!

Just a small example here. I learned about such weapon as goedendag back when I was reading The Flower of Battle. The versatility and power of this weapon impressed me greatly. And now I see goedendag in your codex of arms and I wonder: how did they make it? So I look at the tables, pick the right options and there I have it, – exactly as you've put it and much in line with the description of this weapon's real life qualities. That was the moment that I saw the gears at work. Clever design.

Clever indeed!
I love how S&S does everything The Dark Eye Does, but streamlined instead of ingeniously awful.

(also this is the 1337th post in this board. yay me)

You lot keep talking about it. One day, I'm going to hunt down a copy of The Dark Eye and see what all the fuss is about.

It has recently been translated in a Kickstarter. But it's only the dumped down 5th edition that is even worse from a game design perspective than the 4th nemedeus is most likely referring to... but anyways: don't waste your time in reading it. It's much better spent with SaS! I've stopped referring to TDE on these forums because none other than nemedeus and me know it and everyone else should be spared the effort to investigate in this direction.

EinBein wrote:It has recently been translated in a Kickstarter. But it's only the dumped down 5th edition that is even worse from a game design perspective than the 4th nemedeus is most likely referring to... but anyways: don't waste your time in reading it. It's much better spent with SaS! I've stopped referring to TDE on these forums because none other than nemedeus and me know it and everyone else should be spared the effort to investigate in this direction.

To the contrary, i say, read it, as the prime example of how to make bad decisions in game design. Read it and weep. Read, while keeping in mind that it has not only the most rules, but also the worst, most fiddly, most nightmarish, most buerocratic, and most contradictory rules you've ever read (FATAL notwithstanding).

If you actually analyse the rules for all the mistakes that were made (and i mean ALL the mistakes, because they made ALL of the mistakes they could have made, excluding some exceptions few and far in-between), there is a lot to learn from it. That said, you guys are already the best people in RPG design as far as i'm concerned, so EinBein is right when he says, the time is better spent with S&S.