[projectaon] Re: Editor's Companion Submission

On 6/3/06, Simon Osborne <outspaced@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 
pamail.cgi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> The following was sent from the Editor's Companion form
>    From: Thomas Wolmer
>    Date: 19:53:48 on Friday, June 2, 2006
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> (ft) 17tdoi 179: Since all other places where you are asked for a Meal has 
you being able to use Grand Huntmastery, can't one just assume that the absence of 
that option here was intentional? (Even though there is no particular logic to 
it...)

But correcting illogical omissions is one of our accepted tenets! 

I did a search for the phrase "eat a Meal" and the regular expression
"eat.*meals" within all Grandmaster books except The Curse of Naar. I
found that this is the only place where Huntmastery isn't mentioned in
connection with being required to eat a meal. Can anyone think of more
phrases to search for?

Proposed footnote: "It is unclear whether Grand Huntmastery should
help you find food in this situation. Note that this appears to be the
only section within the Grand Master books where Huntmastery is not
mentioned in when you are required to eat a Meal. This either means
that the current omission is intentional because the author is
otherwise so consistent, or it means that Huntmastery was intended to
be applied in all situations and this is a simple omission."

> (??) 17tdoi 264: So is this badboy immune to Kai-blast too? (Footnote?)

If he's immune to Kai-surge, he's going to be immune to Kai-blast unless
specifically stated, surely?


All sections where Kai-surge and Kai-blast are mentioned together, a
creature is never immune to just Kai-surge. No info on Kai-ray. There
are quite a few places which mention immunity to Kai-surge but don't
mention Kai-blast. Those sections might be revised to say "all forms
of psychic attack".

> (??) 17tdoi tssf: There is a slight Magnamund history problem in this book. 
First, unlike what this section says, it was during the Age of War that the Elder 
Magi defeated Agarash and the Age of the Old Kingdoms came afterwards, according 
to the MC. Second, throughout the book the old native Ixians are described as an 
Old Kingdoms race... which they then clearly weren't, as they lived a few thousand 
years before that era.

There are also timeline problems with Voyage of the Moonstone that are unlikely
to get fixed. Might want to footnote this, maybe, possibly, but it's possible
that this updated information supersedes that presented in The Magnamund
Companion, for example. Or that Joe was deliberately vague about this
information in one or both of the sources.


We can fix the reference to when Agarash was defeated. The term "Old
Kingdoms" when applied to people, magic, or nations seems to be used
promiscuously. For example: "You quickly discover that these ice-boats
are propelled by Old Kingdom magic, an arcane art far older and more
benign than the Deathlord's vile necromancy." (Section 162) It seems
to be used to mean anything prior to the appearance of the Shianti.

Is this worthy of footnoting? Where would we footnote it?

--
Jon

Other related posts: