[projectaon] Re: 27v Errata
- From: John TFS <johntfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 11:44:37 +0000
That sounds right to me. For the arrow thing you might give an example like
"if you have 5 arrows, you'll lose 3 of them. The only way you'll lose no
arrows is if you have no arrows when this occurs."
> Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 11:20:44 +0100
> From: outspaced@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [projectaon] Re: 27v Errata
>
> On 25/08/2013 00:54, O'Toole, Laurence (2000) wrote:
> >>>> (er/ft) 131: You must now erase half of all the Arrows you carry,
> >>>> rounding the figure up to the nearest whole number where appropriate.
> >>>> [lm: are you to round up the half that you subtract or the total
> >>>> number of arrows that you carry?]
> >>>> [jb: Good question. I could only find a couple of other places where
> >>>> the author talks about rounding numbers up or down (is my regex-fu
> >>>> failing me?). Both cases (03btng:192 and 04wotw:125) were in the Grey
> >>>> Star books. All cases that I found suffer from a similar problem. I
> >>>> tend to think you should round the number of arrows lost, but that's
> >>>> just me. What would we say in a footnoote?]
> >>>>
> >>>> For once, I have no real opinion in this matter!
> >>>
> >>> Hmm. For me the instructions are very much unambiguous. To me "the
> >>> figure" in the subordinate clause clearly refers to the number ("half of
> >>> all") of arrows that you must erase.
> >>
> >> Maybe it's different in other languages, but in my mind this can
> >> definitely be read either way.
> >
> > (That doesn't mean that both are equally sound. :-p)
> >
> > I can see the counter-argument, but I would tend to read this as 'round up
> > the number of arrows you lose', and *not* 'round up the number of arrows
> > you keep'. Two reasons for this:
> > 1) The only figure mentioned in the sentence is 'half of all the Arrows you
> > carry'.
> > 2) From a gameplay point of view, if you only have a single arrow then the
> > alternative has no effect. The paragraph explicitly says that the event
> > "damages your Quiver" (independent of all other considerations). Presumably
> > this was intended to have *some* consequence, regardless of how full/empty
> > the quiver was.
>
> ...So, how about:
>
> (er) 131: rounding the figure up to the nearest whole number -> rounding
> the number of Arrows lost up to the nearest whole number [LT: i.e. at
> least 1]
>
> Would that avoid any ambiguity?
>
>
> For the other remaining issue:
>
> (er) 235, 281: mindblast -> Mindblast
> [jb: These don't seem to refer to a Kai Discipline but to a generic
> blast of mind energy (e.g. "You launch a mindblast at the angry
> sergeant..."). I can't find any other similar examples in the books.
> Instead, how about "mind blast" in order to prevent confusion?]
> [ik: There is a precedence concerning the generic use of "mindshield"
> (as opposed to the Kai Discipline of Mindshield). In 08tjoh:230 and in
> 12tmod:141, "mindshield" is used as description for a generic shield
> against mind energy. We have neither changed this to "mind shield" nor
> to "mind-shield". Consequently, I suggest to also leave "mindblast" as-is.]
> [jb: This a good point and I was about to agree with you, but it made
> me look for other cases of "(a|your) [Mm]indblast" and there are only
> few cases, but they are all "Mindblast" except for these two. It makes
> me hesitate. Obviously Joe was OK with capitalizing in cases like this,
> so maybe we should capitalize them all just to be consistent. If we do,
> we may want to reconsider the two cases of uncapitalized "mindshield".]
>
>
> ...So we should capitalise Mindblast here, and Mindshield in 08tjoh:230
> and 12tmod:141?
>
> --
> Simon Osborne
> Project Aon
>
> ~~~~~~
> Manage your subscription at //www.freelists.org/list/projectaon
>
>
Other related posts:
