No Quarter

[Morgoth]

Well, they both get their own section in the AB, so I assume they're not the same thing. Otherwise, why make two terms that mean the exact same thing and list them as two different things?

Maybe they aren't listing two different things.
My interpetation is that the knock-out paragraph is about explaining what happens when someone is wounded twice, ie "he immediately becomes unconscious (see below)" even if he got endurance to spare.

Keep in mind that when TOR was published, that whole wound-thing that bypassed that not-really-hit-points-endurance-thing was somewhat of a novelty, so maybe they felt the need to explain it in detail

Other than that, knocked out don't get much of an explanation of its effects, nor a discernible reason to exist.

I agree, there's seems to be little reason for their to be two terms so similar, but the text does make the distinction between the two. I kind of hope they combine it into one term when they update it. Unless of course they plan on making more use of the distinction later on. As it is, the only place I can see where the distinction matters is in the case of No Quarter.

[shaneivey]

I would be surprised if Francesco and company meant "knocked out" as some specific variant to "unconscious." The No Quarter ability seems very straightforward to me. If the enemy renders the companion unconscious, the enemy may spend a point of Hate to attempt a coup de grace. The prerequisite for a coup de grace is the vulnerability of unconsciousness, not "unconscious and wounded."

For my part, I don't have any objection to the ability because TOR player characters are very difficult to kill -- and yet the possibility of death ought to always feel present. They get knocked out all the time but death is very, very rare. At least in my games.

I recommend making it clear to your players that their characters CAN die in play, so they don't get bent out of shape by thinking they had perfect plot immunity, and then playing it as written and letting the rules do their work.

But you can certainly ditch the ability or change it if it's offensive. Maybe it doesn't flat-out KILL a character but it leaves them dying, and if they are saved it leaves the character maimed in some permanent way. The main thing is to use it to demonstrate the viciousness of this particular foe.

[doctheweasel]

I would also narratively describe that such opponents mean business and that falling before them could be the end. You can get more mileage out of the trait as a threat and descriptor than you can with "surprise, you're dead."

[Corvo]

I would also narratively describe that such opponents mean business and that falling before them could be the end. You can get more mileage out of the trait as a threat and descriptor than you can with "surprise, you're dead."

"surprise, you're dead." thank you Doctheweasel, you managed to describe in four words what I don't like in that skill. Ah, the benefits of being a native speaker...

@Morgoth
By the way, in my houserules being wounded twice means that you are dying (by the RAW you need to be wounded once+zero endurance)...
so we can say that in my game there is a "knocked out" condition that is worst than Unconscious

[Beran]

In my mind if you pick a fight with something like a Hill Troll Chief then you deserve what you get. And I have to admit I can see the Easterlings and even the Tyrant' Hill mob having the ability. The Easterlings are a force that I get the feeling are pretty much feared...with reason obviously. And the TH Boys are said to be made up of cut throats, so it kind of makes sense.

Though having a possible enemy with the ability in a situation that could be the first fight of the campaign might be considered a little excessive.

[Robin Smallburrow]

The Corsairs of Umbar also (most of them) have this ability, this is one of the reasons they are greatly feared of course.

Look at it from the viewpoint of the average farmer in Rhovanion, Gondor etc. when rumour comes that Easterlings/Corsairs are coming! Now you understand why these guys NEED a fearsome ability such as No Quarter.

Robin S.

[Glorelendil]

I'm not sure I buy the argument that Corsairs or Easterlings are more vicious than orcs. Or than wargs.

Nor that it's inherently more foolish to attack some varieties of trolls than others.

It's an odd ability, for sure.

[Beran]

Nor that it's inherently more foolish to attack some varieties of trolls than others.

If you attack the chief of any culture that is anywhere near a warrior culture then you are usually attacking the toughest guy on the block. In this case it seems only Hill Trolls have something similar to a hierarchy. Therefore, the chief needs something to m make him scarier then his fellows.

[Corvo]

Nor that it's inherently more foolish to attack some varieties of trolls than others.

If you attack the chief of any culture that is anywhere near a warrior culture then you are usually attacking the toughest guy on the block. In this case it seems only Hill Trolls have something similar to a hierarchy. Therefore, the chief needs something to m make him scarier then his fellows.

The Hill Troll Chieftain got higher Endurance, Hate, Parry, Armour, Weapon Skills. Yet, he's not scarier, because he lacks the Strike Fear ability of normal Hill Trolls

[Falenthal]

I think the Hill Trolls use to choose his chiefs among the prettiest of them. Therefore he's not as scary as the normal ones.