A pre-release suggestion (maybe unnecessary?)

Steve B

With MRQ on the shelves in less than a week, I think Mongoose would be well served to have an errata up BEFORE the release date to address the glaring combat error. At a minimum, it needs an official answer in one of the threads discussing it.

I'm sure the powers that be know exactly what they meant and how it should be played, so it would be a simple matter to address the offending text or table. I'm not suggesting they are ignoring the situation, but it really should have been answered by now since it was first noticed at Open Day.

I'm not meaning to be impatient, disgruntled, or anything less than positive and enthusiastic, but delaying answering this issue is not a good idea. As someone before me mentioned, most RPGers (at least the type that will be attracted to MRQ) judge an RPG by its combat system--a file error that presents conflicting guidance on the most basic attack hit/miss situation will certainly be a black mark until it is properly addressed.

As I have been proven too stupid to find the thread detailing the combat problem by myself, coudl you please point me there? thanks in advance...
I'm not afraid to admit my own mistakes and misunderstandings, so here goes:

From the recent threads discussing combat examples, I'm realizing the rules may work as written and no errata is necessary.

Many people (myself included) were assuming (there's that word again) that combat would only require one attack roll, which then lead to the attack/parry chart making no sense. However, it's coming to light that a successful attack that is reacted to causes for a second roll on that chart and in that context the chart and rules make sense.

So, my apologys for hasty judgment and impatience. On the flip side, when this whole issue started heating up after Open day, a simple message from Mongoose stating "don't worry, it works, you'll see when you have all the rules" sure would have prevented a lot of concern and grist. Buy hey, it's made for some good discussion as we wait for next week!

Thanks to everyone who has the rules and has taken the time o educate us on how they do work,
No need to apologize or anything like that. There still seems to be some confusion in the rulebook...after all, Halfbat has one and still seemed to think the text and table didn't completely jive. In any case we'll soon find out for sure. Otherwise, I don't think the game is anything like so messed up as to be unusable or even require heavy mods. I for one am looking forward to it like a 9 year old at Christmas time! :D
Unfortunately even with reading the rules there are some bits which don't work, and should be Errata'ed asap if Mongoose wouldn't mind :D

As far as I can see, they include:

1.) 100%+ skills & the "halving rule"
Mathematically, this just doesn't work. There are numerous examples of why on the thread I (rather inadvertently...) started. It's no use saying that "the ratios remain the same" - mathematically, you have a lower chance of hitting (or parrying, for that matter) a trollkin if you have a 120% chance (ie 60% after halving) weapon skill than if you have a 90%. It's plain maths.
2.) Critical Damage
This is partly "opinion", but I would say this is broken. The fact that Criticals do not ignore armour and only cause maximum damage (rather than double) makes them more or less redundant - in combat. Note that for non-opposed rolls outside combat (Crafting Boats, for example), the criticals work fine, if a bit vague (no vaguer than previous editions tho ;-) )
3.) The Opposed Parry / Dodge Rolls
Please could Mongoose clarify what's supposed to happen when the Attacker rolls a Critical on the attack roll and then only a Success or Failure against the Defender's failed "parry" roll. The wording is, "Attack Succeeds as Normal" - can you confirm whether this remains a Critical, or is downgraded to a Normal Success. Also, what is the case if the Attacker's second roll is a Critical versus the Defender's failed "parry" roll. The wording is "Attack succeeds and becomes critical hit" - does this mean "No Change", and the attack remains a Critical, or should it become a "Double Critical"?
BTW - could Mongoose comment on the decision to increase the number of dice rolls here? Was it the intention to slow combat down, especially with impales? Are we interpreting the rules correctly by having an Unopposed Attack roll followed by an Opposed Defense roll if the Defender elects to defend?
4.) That Skybolt Spell! :eek:
It just seems really overpowered. 3d6 damage, ignoring armour, for 3 magic points, and all the defender gets is a Dodge roll (opposed? unopposed?) - this is by far and away the most powerful attack in the whole rules (that I've found so far), and pretty much wipes the floor with the others. Admittedly you can only use it "outdoors", but hell.... Could Mongoose comment?

These are just from a quick read through the rules - there will doubtless be other things which haven't cropped up yet. Hopefully Mongoose will see fit to comment / produce errata as appropriate.

Can I just say too that despite any apparent negative comments I am a dyed-in-the-wool RQ and Glorantha fan and have been for over 1/4 a century (arg!), and have been looking forwards to this release. I really want to like these rules - but it seems to me they still need some work.


sarahnewton: You have summarized my concerns about the rules in this thread. Thank you. I hope we can get some official answers on this.
Especially since it seems those that has read through the rules end up with some large question marks.

Thanks. A useful summary of issues.

Looks like it may be a mix of real issues and clarification.

On the latter I've learned over many years that even if something is right but people don't understand it then it needs changing.