Rune Lore

[Cyric]

I finally read through the book and it leaves me a bit irritated. Is there some supplyment for the missing Codices? Out of the nine Codices named only three are presented within the handbook. Even the example for rune usages refer to runes that are not included in the book (making an item for water breathing talks about a water rune, but there is only one for fire).
Looking at DrivethroughRPG and at the only review there I'm not the only one who is missing stuff here.

Can someone help me out? Cause with the runes inside the Rune Lore handbook the Rune Mark seems mighty underpowered.

[Treebore]

The Trolls were SUPPOSEDLY going to be putting those out as supplementary material, but you've already noticed how that has been going...

[Lurker]

Rgr, I agree. I like the idea of the class and how TLG did it. However, as I never liked playing super level campaigns etc etc etc and sure never enjoyed running them back when I ran games, I have little use for chomos spanning rune spells.

What I do need/like is more useful lower level runes

[Litzen Tallister]

I love the idea of the Rune Mark and most of the implementation about the class. The exception is the runes provided in Rune Lore for me. They present a great sandbox to assemble effects from, but not enough framework of how those effects tie to the game-play and, as above-mentioned, they aren't yet complete for Airhde's established runes. My solution has been to defer to the runes listed in the Codex Nordica.