As this question is posed in the general Rolemaster thread, I can offer some info from RM2. 

For situations like this, we always referred to the info C&T provided.  Chances are extremely high that the stats for "Phantom, Lesser" are in C&T as it was published well before C&T2 and C&T3.  Possibly RMC-I would have stats, but I've done a lot of reading of C&T.

Most undead are immune to bleeding and stun.  Chances are even higher that they are only injured by magic weapons or higher quality weapons (silver, mithril, eog)  There are no bones to break, so limb incapacitation is not an issue, and it probably doesn't even have legs if it's a phantom, not a walking undead type creature.

Hi guys, it's a long time ago since we got new official shadowworld material. In my homecampaign my players got their first epic battle (for lvl 5) and we decided to give the community a little back from our fun. So I published the tales in form of short stories in both ICE  discord forums. Have fun: https://discord.com/channels/699316643716923483/705098090251550871/1263818995463880705                             Best regards                    Micael

It sounds to me like the stated goals from MisterK align much better with HARP than RM. Why go with the game that is deliberately made to be archetype-strong if your desire is to not have such strong archetypes?

I use RM mostly because I started playing and GMing in Shadow World with that system back in '86 (when it was still called "World of the Loremasters"), and my regular players have told me that changing the magic list-based system would feel really weird (I'm still GMing Shadow World, and the setting has been the same throughout the years - different time points, different locations, different characters, but same world). So I'm tweaking and hacking the various systems but I keep basically keep the Spell Law I don't use RM out of that specific context.
As I said elsewhere, I'm slowly moving away from an archetype based system, bit by little bit (I'm also moving away from the combat system as it is in the RAW, among other things). It's a back-and-forth process, that will probably never end because my tastes evolve over the years as well and because I like to experiment and hack mechanisms.
Ideally, if I could hack the RM spell lists subsystem with an occupation-based subsystem along the lines of what WHFRP or IK propose and with a combat subsystem close to what I currently have (which is a hack of HarnMaster, with a wound effect variability inspired from RM) and a completely different initiative system, this would probably be a good starting point. But given that I have other hobbies besides TTRPGs, it will probably have to wait until I'm retired, in a few years - and my tastes will likely have evolved again in the meantime

Ironcrown has two major games. RM allows you to take any skill but is designed as an archetype heavy so that costs will enforce the stereotype strongly. HARP, on the other hand, has archetypes in some sense, but the limited differences in costs and spell selection associated with profession choice mean the enforcement of the archetype is much weaker. From another perspective, HARP is designed so you can do a professional switch at level up, while such does not make sense at all with RM.

It sounds to me like the stated goals from MisterK align much better with HARP than RM. Why go with the game that is deliberately made to be archetype-strong if your desire is to not have such strong archetypes?

Hi,
I was looking for some house rules for Rolemaster and one of the links that looked interesting was for the May 2002 Issue of the Guild Companion http://www.guildcompanion.com/scrolls/2002/may/revisedweapontables.html . The link of course is dead as the site no longer exists, and the issues accessible here go back to 2007.

I tried the Wayback Machine, but it was no good. Do you know of any way I can get the May 2002 Issue?
Thanks,
Greville