Well, read both the TOC and the arms and armor rules.
The armor and weapon rules add nothing to my saga, so we will be routinely ignoring them as usual. I feel they do not address any of the funadamental issues we have with the Ars combat system, and the last part of the TOC seems to have the same design, so that part is unlikely to be used. Still, stuff like panicked horses is bound to be milked for high drama descriptions for sure
OTOH the first sections of the TOC have me on a hype!!! THAT IS BLOODY AMAZING!!! That just is... perfect. The "why does the order does not take over ME?" section is bound to have some funny stuff, since it addresses a fundamental unsolveable problem of the game world (if you are too skeptic) but in general it looks like a great supplement. If it is riddled with story hooks, you could easily build a whole saga out of this book.
If the book is half as good as the TOC hints, I have to already say well done people
I really like the arms and armor pdf, and the book looks great when looking at the TOC. I'm hoping to play a noble Companion in our current campaign, and a good system on how this works in Ars Magica is something I've been waiting for. And a good noble won't be abstract with his armor. Details all around! Nice
As for the player's in my group wanting to have characters using two weapons, and official rules on how to calculate this, I'm afraid they'll be disappointed. Doesn't seem like there's anyting about it in the book. Anyway, from the Mamluk Emir in RoP: Divine, who's statted using two longswords, it seems that using a second longsword gives you -1 to Initiative and +1 to both Attack, Defense and Damage when compared to using one longsword. Hmm...
Really? When I compared the stats for his combined weapons to a regular longsword I got +1 to Initiative, Attack, Defense, Damage, Strength Requirement and Load. I never factored in the -2 Encumbrance penalty for his kit though, but its hard to see how that would have any effect unless he keeps the additional sword somewhere off his person while fighting (while still keeping his Lance and Shortbw on his person) and I think it might be an instance of errata...
Well, anyway, I'm interested in finding clear rules for this. I've been trying all sorts of variations, and I was really hoping for some official word.
I have a dubt, there are a text talking about the Bastard sword in the PDF, but there aren't any mention in the weapon table. Must i supose that a bastard sword is no more that a long sword when is used how a Single Weapon and a great Sword when is used with Great Weapon?
Looking back at my notes, what seems to have happened is that very early on in development, I had separate statistics for a bastard sword one-handed and two-handed. I worked through several iterations of changes to the bastard sword statistics but apparently forgot to update the text. So, the text is wrong.
I'm going to recommend errata for this. What it should read is,
Broadsword is a 16th century term, used initially by people with thin Reniassance swords to refer to the wider swords found in earlier times. The term became popular in the C19th in Engliish. No medieval person ever refered to their sword as a "broadsword" as they did not think the average sword narrow.
Fighting with a shield and a one-handed weapon dominates in this period. Shields are simply too useful, and armor not yet strong enough to obsolete smaller weapons.
Of course, magi face supernatural opponents and might feel a need to introduce these larger weapons early.
Come to think of it, if your knights fight dragons, you can justify the introduction of full plate armor centuries before its time, and the giant swords to penetrate those thick scales....
So, the text is wrong.
