This actually raises the issue: I looked at the svg flowchart, and there's no way to guarantee that the player has a quiver at this point. (For all we know, they elected not to take a bow and arrows on this adventure.) I'm not sure I can see a way to resolve that discontinuity, though.
Ben On Sun, 25 Aug 2013, John TFS wrote:
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
~~~~~~ Manage your subscription at //www.freelists.org/list/projectaon
