[projectaon] Re: 27v Errata
- From: John TFS <johntfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 04:36:50 +0000
My suggestion seems to cover that. If you don't have a Quiver, you can't carry
Arrows. Beyond that, figure leave it alone. The passage is basically saying.
"If you have a Quiver, then this situation damaged it and you lost half your
Arrows. If you only had one Arrow, it's gone. If you never had Arrows or a
Quiver to start with, then don't worry about it and move on."
> Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 08:44:11 -0400
> From: krefetz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [projectaon] Re: 27v Errata
>
> 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
>
>
Other related posts:
