Remove ads

Warhammer Fantasy: Divided Loyalties - an Advisor's Quest

Voted best in category in the Users' Choice awards.
Voting is open
Reader mode
Jakobstj said:
So you're saying Sigmar is to thank for us being able to save any loved ones who die in the future?:V
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
THE ONLY ONE TO THANK FOR THAT IS ABELHELM VAN HAL!

Sigmar is only as thankable as the Countess, they had equivalent roles in us obtaining the Liber Mortis.

SuperSonicSound said:
Channeling shyish will still fuck our soul iirc. Unless necromancy spells work with Ulgu we are likely unable to cast them safely.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If only Shyish-wielders could cast Necromancy spells reliably*, the Liber Mortis wouldn't need to be kept away from all wizards.
*As reliable as Dhar magic can get
 
Remove ads
Goldpuncher
  • Media
    • Goldpuncher

    Goldpuncher, he's the man
    The man with the Grungni punch
    We Skaven punch
    Such a bold puncher
    Beckons you to enter his bed of silk
    But eww, Druuchii, ick.

    Molten gold he will pour in his ear
    But his lies can't disguise what you hear
    For an Ulgu girl should know when he's tricked her
    It's off to Altdorf, Magister Goldpuncher
    Ulgu girl, beware of his heart of gold
    This ship is cold

    Molten gold he will pour in his ear
    But his lies can't disguise what you hear
    For an Ulgu girl should know when he's tricked her
    It's off to Altdorf, Magister Goldpuncher
    Ulgu girl, beware of his rod of gold
    This ship is cold

    He loves only gold
    And warp tech
    He loves gold
    He loves punching gold
    And Skaven
    For their gold

    Shovern said:
    I shouldn't do things past 4 AM.


    EDIT: also no idea how to make this not huge sorry.
    EDIT: NVM
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
     
    Last edited:
  • Media
    • Ganurath said:
    Valaya is watching Mathilde through the rune, though. She dislikes Dhar, and is the dwarven goddess of carnal fertility. I have concerns that the pursuit of Dhar would be detrimental to Mathilde's romantic prospects due to divine intervention.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Not realy, you are thinking of a diferent Rune of Valaya, no your fault since there is a bunch of those.
     
    How quickly would we get caught if we made a new redacted version of the liber mortis, leaving the diary entries and stripping out the actual necromantic lore out?
    So the reader gets the "necromancer = bad/mad" but not actually become a necromancer?
     
    IronFist said:
    How quickly would we get caught if we made a new redacted version of the liber mortis, leaving the diary entries and stripping out the actual necromantic lore out?
    So the reader gets the "necromancer = bad/mad" but not actually become a necromancer?
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    I better question would be, why would anyone believe that is the real diary and not just anti-necromancer propaganda ?
     
    IronFist said:
    How quickly would we get caught if we made a new redacted version of the liber mortis, leaving the diary entries and stripping out the actual necromantic lore out?
    So the reader gets the "necromancer = bad/mad" but not actually become a necromancer?
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    The people who would be convinced don't need convincing, and the people who need convincing won't be convinced. Hell, they might think "He didn't have a lot of power, I can do better" or "So the madness takes a while to set in, that means it's ok to use it just once".
     
    SaltyWaffles said:
    There's no way K8P would have any real use for an ironclad (as Warhammer uses the term), though. It's restricted to rivers--which means monitors. But monitors are basically relatively small, armored warships with cannon that sail in rivers or coastal waters, for patrol/defensive purposes.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    Dwarven ironclads and monitors aren't river-restricted, though. According to Man'O'War they are all seaworthy and differ only in size and armament, basically:
    Monitor = destroyer
    Ironclad = cruiser
    Dreadnought = battleship.
     
    The problem with the liber Mortis is that it could have a 99,9% chance of convincing necromancers not to necromance, and it'd still be an unnacceptable risk due to what it reveals to the remaining 0,1%.

    What it reveals is empire destroying knowledge.
     
    picklepikkl said:
    The thing he's stuck on is the ratling gun, not the jezzail.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    I suspect the ratling gun is giving him more hell because of the moving parts. Just knowing how each part is made and how it works doesn't give you much of a clue how to make the whole assembly work.

    Jezzail would probably be easier. A long, straight and strong barrel is something right up the Gold College's alley
     
    Kornet said:
    They probably have most of necromancy theory from earlier derivatives of Nagash's work.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Maybe, but the Mortis is one of the cleanest and safest variants on Necromany we know of.
    Of course not safe enough, but that's a different matter.

    Everything older was likely made by vampires or undead like Arkhan. They didn't have to try to bind and contain the Dhar like Vanhel did, because it couldn't harm them anyway.
     
    veekie said:
    I suspect the ratling gun is giving him more hell because of the moving parts. Just knowing how each part is made and how it works doesn't give you much of a clue how to make the whole assembly work.

    Jezzail would probably be easier. A long, straight and strong barrel is something right up the Gold College's alley
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    If you remove the warpstone, is there any advantage to a jezzail over a Hochland Long Rifle?

    As far as I'm aware, the big thing with jezzails is that warpstone ammo makes them extremely armor-piercing.
     
    Mopman43 said:
    If you remove the warpstone, is there any advantage to a jezzail over a Hochland Long Rifle?

    As far as I'm aware, the big thing with jezzails is that warpstone ammo makes them extremely armor-piercing.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    The Jezzail is made by a civilization with more advanced machine tools, meaning harder, longer and more consistent rifled barrels. Those processes can be transferred, producing guns with longer range and reliability, as well as transferable processes in metallurgy making for better everything.

    Don't just consider the military utility.
     
    Mopman43 said:
    If you remove the warpstone, is there any advantage to a jezzail over a Hochland Long Rifle?
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    That is something that has to be researched before we know.

    Not in any complicated way, but comparing reliability, accuracy, penetration and range of a Jezzail with mundane bullets with the Hochland Rifle will take some time and work at a shooting range.
     
    Might want to ask Johann to switch to jezzail, honestly. Maybe it will give some insight which'll help with ratling gun too.
     
    Ganurath said:
    Valaya is watching Mathilde through the rune, though. She dislikes Dhar, and is the dwarven goddess of carnal fertility. I have concerns that the pursuit of Dhar would be detrimental to Mathilde's romantic prospects due to divine intervention.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    We don't know that, it's conjecture. More constructively, this being true would be like saying 'yeah, you can juggle warpstone and hug daemons, but if you do so you actually can't, lol'.

    I don't tend to use 'lol' much, because it usually doesn't say anything that couldn't be better conveyed in other, more respectful words, but in this case what it does do is underline how much of a, I think the word is copout, it would be for a dwarven artifact that we were told wouldn't hold with silly conceptual shenanigans to suddenly have the silly conceptual shenanigan of 'a god will turn this off if you use it for what the GM said you could use it for' on it.

    I apologise if this sounds like I'm mad at you, because that wasn't my intention. But that line of conjecture does really bug me.
     
    chocolote12 said:
    We don't know that, it's conjecture. More constructively, this being true would be like saying 'yeah, you can juggle warpstone and hug daemons, but if you do so you actually can't, lol'.

    I don't tend to use 'lol' much, because it usually doesn't say anything that couldn't be better conveyed in other, more respectful words, but in this case what it does do is underline how much of a, I think the word is copout, it would be for a dwarven artifact that we were told wouldn't hold with silly conceptual shenanigans to suddenly have the silly conceptual shenanigan of 'a god will turn this off if you use it for what the GM said you could use it for' on it.

    I apologise if this sounds like I'm mad at you, because that wasn't my intention. But that line of conjecture does really bug me.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    I repectfully disagree with this kind of reading of it.

    If the speculation before you is correct, it would be like a DnD's paladin powers, ie you can do what you can do as long as you keep your oaths, it wouldn't be "you can, but actually you can't, lol".

    There also would be a lot of situations (most, really) that would be in keeping with Valaya where we could actually use the rune without it being "if you do so you actually can't, lol". The examples given by the qm are major ones, as being in proximity of demons and warpstone are required to fight demons and things that use warpstone, and, as such, protection from involuntary poisoning is something that under no scenario would be frowned upon. It would go similarly for magic accidents, as long as the intentions aren't to create Dhar, as well as for handling violative materials. In a pinch, using Dhar as a necessity (say, using dispel undead) would probably be forgiven even in such a scenario as the one speculated by the person you quoted.

    No, what actually would be punished, in such a situation, would be intentionally creating Dhar without good reason(remember, it pollutes) and/or using it to go full evil wizard without the usual consequences. It would be pretty much considered using the gift for evil, and I imagine that would be a pretty good reason for some smiting.
     
    Last edited:
    storryeater said:
    I repectfully disagree with this kind of reading of it.

    If the speculation before you is correct, it would be like a DnD's paladin powers, ie you can do what you can do as long as you keep your oaths, it wouldn't be "you can, but actually you can't, lol".

    There also would be a lot of situations (most, really) that would be in keeping with Valaya where we could actually use the rune without it being "if you do so you actually can't, lol". The examples given by the qm are major ones, as being in proximity of demons and warpstone are required to fight demons and things that use warpstone, and, as such, protection from involuntary poisoning is something that under no scenario would be frowned upon. It would go similarly for magic accidents, as long as the intentions aren't to create Dhar, as well as for handling violative materials. In a pinch, using Dhar as a necessity (say, using dispel undead) would probably be forgiven even in such a scenario as the one speculated by the person you quoted.

    No, what actually would be punished, in such a situation, would be intentionally creating Dhar without good reason(remember, it pollutes) and/or using it to go full evil wizard without the usual consequences. It would be pretty much considered using the gift for evil, and I imagine that would be a pretty good reason for some smiting.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    The full quote of 'no metaphysical fishhooks' was this:
    BoneyM said:
    Magically-created fire is still fire, and harms by being really hot; you'd be immune to that. Dragonfire is rather infamous for burning whatever it damn well pleases, so you don't like your chances there.



    It means that you could juggle warpstone, hug a demon, and fling Dhar around and just have to deal with your robes getting singed as the corruption burns away rather than sinking into your soul. If you had this in Sylvania you would have just had to deal with occasional minor flashfires on your skin instead of those ominous 'go on, raise the dead, you know you want to' options popping up all over the place. It probably says a lot about Kragg's opinion of manling wizards that he saw that as the main sort of 'protection' you needed.

    That said, while it makes you immune to metaphysical corruption it doesn't make you immune to metaphorical corruption; you could still go down a dark road where you become the next Nagash or fall to one of the Chaos Gods through hubris or personality flaws or personal tragedy, but you're not going to get fishhooked into it by mystical means.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Now, certainly you could argue that the belt only stops somebody from pushing us down the road, and once we're on it by our own means it'll stop working, but that's really just not how I see it being implemented, both in terms of mechanics and thematics.

    Because if the voters start voting for Mathilde to go little bits deeper and deeper that way, questor/character verisimilitude is something that will absolutely have to be maintained in order for it to be a good and interesting story, and I don't see that happening if Dhar pushes us further into monstrous evil than the questors happen to be. BoneyM doesn't usually infect the actual readers with black magic, so they've only got metaphorical corruption left, and keeping the mindsets of us and our character together is something I think is pretty important; the belt is just an explanation for how they would going to go about doing that, if we turned to evil and badness.
     
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Voting is open
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top