[projectaon] Re: 17tdoi Potential Edits
- From: "David Davis" <feline1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:11:20 -0000
I think this approach is sensible.
How about putting the general footnote about it in the Game Rules bit that
explains combats?
An additional suggestion: to make it easier for trainspotters and worriers,
how about simply putting a little symbol in the combats in question
(maybe next to the enemy's name), say a † symbol, to indicate it's one of
the amended ones,
and then as you say, list them the details of the changes in the errata.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Blake
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 12:02 AM
To: projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [projectaon] Re: 17tdoi Potential Edits
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Chris Neilson <crusty.chris@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Fundamentally, Im failing to see why a footnote is needed in this case
at all. What exactly is it that you are planning on saying in the
footnote that could not be mentioned in the errata?
Part of it is the scope of the changes. They're all over. I suggest a
short footnote that says, "Many enemies in this book have had their
statistics reduced in accordance with the Mongoose Publishing edition
to balance the game which was originally quite challenging. See the
Errata for details." We might even consider creating a special list of
the affected combats on the Errata page to make it easier to find
them.
The argument for having a footnote in every affected section is for
the convenience of a reader who wants to face the challenge of the
original.
--
Jon
~~~~~~
Manage your subscription at //www.freelists.org/list/projectaon
~~~~~~
Manage your subscription at //www.freelists.org/list/projectaon
Other related posts:
