Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 zohar666 Nov 29, 2009 16:31:45	My bookstore have a copy of this book and I am thinking of getting it. Anybody who has the book could give me opinions about it? I know Hellcow have little to do with this book and  I am cautious about the fluff inside. Thank you.
#2 ellorin Nov 30, 2009 7:21:40	It's pretty good. Even if your campaigns take place after the end of the Last War the lore included can be very useful. Other than a few details( the armies of Thrane should have number many more archers) I was satisfied by the book's fluff. Crunch...pretty average but that was not supposed to be the book's strong point(and only matters if you play 3.5-as a 4e player it just doesn't matter). It's not as good as Dragons of Eberron or Secrets of Sarlona but I'd recommend it.
#3 Hellcow Nov 30, 2009 11:03:05	In general, I consider the depiction of Thrane to be inconsistent with the other books. Aside from the obvious issue of archers, it presents much more of a crazed mob mentality than makes sense with the current overall tone of the nation and the moderate stance of the Keeper (for all that she's relatively new, if her people were THAT psycho she'd have trouble holding her power). From the start the ECS said that most of the followers of the Flame are moderate in their views, with the Pure Flame as a lunatic fringe. Later sources built on the concept that the majority of the Pure Flame is actually in Aundair, having its roots in the Lycanthropic Purge and the vision of the faith as a militant tool of salvation and vengeance... and furthermore, being far from the mitigating influence of the Keeper. Beyond this, Flame doctrine holds that the sword is NOT the tool to fight human evil. Obviously when you have to fight for political reasons you have to fight, but Thrane as a whole has never been supposed to revel in slaughter (especially as there are followers of the Silver Flame spread throughout the Five Nations). So overall I think it's an excellent book. And the sad part is that I think the Thrane sections are well WRITTEN... just poorly researched.
#4 Ogiwan Dec 01, 2009 6:09:01	I found it decent, overall. Great fluff (except for the parts His Infernal Bovinity spoke of), but I, being three signatures shorts of a Masters in Military History, found a good amount of the fluff on actual combat operations or units to be simplistic at best, or completely unrealistic. I think a Mror regiement weighed in at 72 Dwarves or something ludicrous like that.  I've recently started playing around with revised Tables of Organization and Equipment for all the combatants. I've decided that Karrnath uses a "square" division, Breland uses the old British "ten company" regiments (and the Napoleonic-era divisions, which means they lack the support structure of "modern" divisions), and Aundair uses the "triangle" division. I'm unsure of what Thrane and Cyre would use.
#5 Madfox11 Dec 02, 2009 6:06:47	Square division? Circle division? I certainly need to do some reading if I am every going to run a military campaign? Usually I keep it somewhat similar to the Roman division, although I only know how it works in the lower ranks. Mind you, my players rarely care how many sergeants, lieutenants and captains there are in the army  I doubt any group of adventurers would operate very well within the strict hierarchy of the army
#6 Ogiwan Dec 02, 2009 9:52:22	Square divisions have four brigades to a division, whereas a triangle division has three brigades. If you want, you can probably extend this to subunits; four or three companies to the battalion, for instance. Even with the Romans, well, you have the pre-Marian Mantipular legion, and the post-Marian Cohort legion.  ...oh man, I really miss the maniacal laughter smiley on the old board.....   Anyways. Do you need to go that in-depth? No. As they say, your mileage may vary. It works for me, it probably doesn't work for you. In any case, I probably wouldn't bother sticking my players in the army, unless they're snake-eating special operations types. And even then....