[projectaon] Re: Editor's Companion Submission
- From: Thomas Wolmer <angantyr@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 21:20:45 +0100
2009/12/1 Jonathan Blake <jonathan.blake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Simon Osborne <outspaced@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 30/11/2009 09:48, pamail.cgi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>>> (ft) 15tdc 25: [jc: It is possible that you have taken part in the Battle
>>> of Cetza without meeting Captain Prarg. (The same problem is probably also
>>> in the Deathlord of Ixia, section 22.)]
>>
>> Hi Jan
>>
>> I wish these things were more straightforward! I prefer to place the
>> footnotes in Section 315 (Book 15) and Section 305 (Book 17).
>>
>> Book 15: "It is possible that you took part in the Battle of Cetza without
>> meeting Captain Prarg. This continuity error cannot be reconciled."
>>
>> Book 17: "It is possible that you took part in the Battle of Cetza without
>> meeting Captain Prarg (though you will certainly have met him if you have
>> played The Darke Crusade). This continuity error cannot be reconciled."
>>
>> If no one has any complaints about the wording, I'll get these into the test
>> area tonight or tomorrow morning. Phew!
>
> If we footnoted them as "Only turn to this section if you personally
> commanded a company of men who defended the bridge at the Battle of
> Cetza", would that work? I'm working from vague memory here.
Well, more like attacked the bridge (or came to the support of those
who were attacking the bridge, to be specific). But this is
unnecessarily detailed as you either (sooner or later) follow Prince
Graygor fighting at the hill, or you fight at the bridge.
But do we really need a footnote, can't we just extend the text here
with this extra qualifier? "If you took part in the Battle of Cetza
and fought with the Lencian knights at the bridge", or somesuch?
--
Thomas
~~~~~~
Manage your subscription at //www.freelists.org/list/projectaon
Other related posts:
