forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Elfcrusher wrote:I've always thought that Tolkien, despite his historian's chops, cared more about story and aesthetics than about historical accuracy.

Or maybe I'm projecting....

No, you are dead on. Tolkien allows himself a great deal of romantic picking-and-choosing. That's why a tit-for-tat historical comparison to look for inspiration or "fill-in-the-missing-gaps with historical analogies" is the wrong approach (or at least an incomplete one).

Rocmistro wrote:

Elfcrusher wrote:I've always thought that Tolkien, despite his historian's chops, cared more about story and aesthetics than about historical accuracy.

Or maybe I'm projecting....

No, you are dead on. Tolkien allows himself a great deal of romantic picking-and-choosing. That's why a tit-for-tat historical comparison to look for inspiration or "fill-in-the-missing-gaps with historical analogies" is the wrong approach (or at least an incomplete one).

Tolkien consistently denied the existence of any intentional Allegory in his work. So, the Northmen are neither Vikings nor Swedes... Even if their names are.

And Orcs are not Germans.

Andrew wrote:

Michebugio wrote:"The attack resulted in a Piercing
blow, regardless of the outcome
of the Feat die."

The second phrase (in bold) could suggest that you should ignore any result of the Feat die, thus also those above the Edge score of the weapon, not allowing a double Piercing strike.

I think Michebugio is on the money - regardless of the outcome of the Feat die quite explicitly means any outcome of the Feat die, good or bad. You're guaranteed a Piercing Blow if you pull it off, but you don't get any bonus if you naturally rolled a Piercing Blow.

Just to engage in a spot of necromancy, I said I'd double check my interpretation of this rule and I have: what I said was correct. You don't get a double Piercing Blow.

Andrew thanks for the follow-up. That's pretty awesome.

Why are the misdeeds (Breaking an oath and Treachery) left out in the new Edition ?

Also the tables show differences: Old edition (OE), Revised Edition (RE)

- Lying purposefully, subtly manipulate the will of others
1 Shadow Point (OE), 2 Shadow Points (RE)
- Cowardice, theft and plunder
2 Shadow Points (OE), 3 Shadow Points (RE)
- Unprovoked Aggression, abusing own authority to influence or dominate
3 Shadow Points (OE), 4 Shadow Points (RE)
- Breaking an oath, treachery
4 Shadow Points (OE), XXX (RE)

Do you know, I'm not entirely sure! I'll go and investigate...

aramis wrote:Tolkien consistently denied the existence of any intentional Allegory in his work. So, the Northmen are neither Vikings nor Swedes... Even if their names are.

Yes, he denied it, but he wasn't completely sincere about it. The Rohirrim are Anglo-Saxons, no matter what he said to the contrary. The only real difference is their emphasis on horses.

Stormcrow wrote:

aramis wrote:Tolkien consistently denied the existence of any intentional Allegory in his work. So, the Northmen are neither Vikings nor Swedes... Even if their names are.

Yes, he denied it, but he wasn't completely sincere about it. The Rohirrim are Anglo-Saxons, no matter what he said to the contrary. The only real difference is their emphasis on horses.

Yeah, it's pretty clear that particular denial was one of a scholarly nature... Tolkien couldn't prove (to a peer-reviewed journal) that the Anglo-Saxons did and thought all the things that the Rohirrim did and thought; so he denied the connection to avoid any unfair criticism of his scholarly work.

Right, and that's my point about the 'romantic' picking and choosing. Tolkien might have been like "I want Anglo Saxons in my book. I'll call them Rohan. But they are mounted because I love horses!" If we concede that he's willing to stray from historical analog to support his love for horses, we can and maybe should for their armaments as well. Hence the throwing axe in favor of the javelin.

Andrew wrote:

Andrew wrote:

Michebugio wrote:"The attack resulted in a Piercing
blow, regardless of the outcome
of the Feat die."

The second phrase (in bold) could suggest that you should ignore any result of the Feat die, thus also those above the Edge score of the weapon, not allowing a double Piercing strike.

I think Michebugio is on the money - regardless of the outcome of the Feat die quite explicitly means any outcome of the Feat die, good or bad. You're guaranteed a Piercing Blow if you pull it off, but you don't get any bonus if you naturally rolled a Piercing Blow.

Just to engage in a spot of necromancy, I said I'd double check my interpretation of this rule and I have: what I said was correct. You don't get a double Piercing Blow.

As the instigator here, allow me to add my voice to those thanking you very, very much for taking the time on this one, Andrew.