[projectaon] Re: Last of the 28thos errata
- From: Alan Schlieper <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 07:45:10 -0700
How about just publish the damn thing,
and if some minor typo is found you just update
the webpage. Simple.
And for that matter, it appears that the FW books,
are basically done as well and just need to be published.
Can we please just get that out?
The people don't want or need perfection, they want content.
Thanks
Alan Schlieper
-----Original Message-----
From: projectaon-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:projectaon-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Simon Osborne
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 6:04 AM
To: projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [projectaon] Re: Last of the 28thos errata
We're so almost nearly there!! :-)
On 13/06/2014 00:13, Jonathan Blake wrote:
> ~~~~~
> (er) 189: vampire Lord Sejanoz -> vampire lord Sejanoz [or, Vampire
> Lord Sejanoz] ~~~~~
>
> or "vampire, Lord Sejanoz"?
Fixed.
> ~~~~~
> (er) 193: explodes the jagged branch -> the jagged branch explodes
> ~~~~~
>
> Sounds a little weird, but it's OK as is. The verb "to explode" can
> take an object.
Rejected.
> ~~~~~
> (er) 200: [jc: If you possess the Kai Weapon 'Valiance', you will
> benefit from its unique properties, as Brumalghasts are magical
> creatures (as is stated in section 235).] ~~~~~
>
> Players must pass through 235 to get to 200, so is it necessary to
> prompt them here, or should we require readers to realize when their
> Kai Weapon gets the extra bonus? I'm thinking of the other cases in
> the books where this would be applicable.
I've added this to the text as "If you possess the Kai Weapon 'Valiance', you
will benefit from its unique properties, as Brumalghasts are magical
creatures." and added the justification in the errata entry. I think we've
actually been pretty good at making these reminders consistent across the NO
series, but if there are any we've missed, we can and should add the relevant
reminder to the section.
> ~~~~~
> (er) 212: the force of your attack at such close quarters explodes the
> Guard Captain's chest armour -> ...crushes the... [Or, ...shatters
> the...] ~~~~~
>
> OK as is.
Rejected.
> ~~~~~
> (er) 267: [jc: Should you also erase one Arrow in favour of the Arrow
> of Atonement, if you have 6 Arrows in Quiver (like Zejar-dulaga)?]
> ~~~~~
>
> If it's taking up a Special Item slot, it doesn't seem like it's being
> carried in a Quiver, e.g. maybe strapped to the Backpack instead? In
> the case of the Zejar-dulaga, the book tells players to carry it in
> the Quiver and doesn't say it takes up a Special Item slot.
Rejected.
> ~~~~~
> (er) 267: tyrant Lord of Bhanar -> tyrant lord of Bhanar [Sean Donald]
> [SO: Or, Tyrant-Lord of Bhanar
> ~~~~~
>
> The XML already has "tyrant lord" without an errata entry. Nowhere
> else in the books do we find "tyrant of Bhanar" or "Lord of Bhanar",
> so they don't seem like titles that need to be capitalized. I lean
> toward "tyrant lord of Bhanar".
Can't remember why that was changed. Added errata entry. Fixed.
> ~~~~~
> (er) 269: Kai Mastery -> mastery
> ~~~~~
>
> This is pretty standard usage in the books. OK as is.
Can't imagine why I missed this one; we've already rejected this change across
the books. Rejected.
> ~~~~~
> (er) 275: Table and add 2 (0 = 10). If you possess Deliverance, you
> may deduct 2 from your total. -> Table (0 = 10) and add 2 if you do
> not possess Deliverance.
> ~~~~~
>
> That is quite a bit less confusing. I'm OK making this change.
Fixed.
> ~~~~~
> (er) 286: after 3,000 years -> after three thousand years [jc: maybe
> better] ~~~~~
>
> Is this an internationalization issue? The books use the comma as the
> digit group delimiter fairly regularly, so this would require a few
> changes across the books. I lean toward leaving this as is since this
> is the conventional notation in English. Thoughts?
Rejected.
I did a quick 'n' dirty search for "000" across the xml files and aside from
year-dates, the only non-comma-delimited instance was in Book 10 Section 65
("1000 miles"). I took the liberty of changing this in Book
10 to "1,000 miles".
> ~~~~~
> (ft) 172, 225: [lm: Ought there to be a footnote here clarifying that
> you may not use your Kai Weapon in this combat. 'Dropping' the weapon
> might be interpreted as dropping it by your side or within reaching
> distance, or also to clarify whether or not you may draw another
> Weapon in the seconds that it takes the robber to reach you.]
> [Add: "You must fight this battle unarmed (i.e. with no CS bonuses
> from your Kai Weapon)."]
> [jc: You cannot use your Kai Weapon in this combat (see section 139).]
> ~~~~~
>
> My suggestion: "You must fight this combat without your Kai Weapon.
> (cf. Section 139)"
Added this to the main section text as errata: "You must fight this combat
without your Kai Weapon." and added the justification in the errata entry.
> ~~~~~
> (ft) 265: Does this affect the number of Arrow you can carry in your Quiver?
> ~~~~~
>
> I think this was meant to be 267?
Merged with the (er) issue in 267 above. Rejected.
Committed changes to svn. Sorted! Also updated the test editions:
Simple:
<http://www.projectaon.org/test/en/xhtml-simple/lw/28thos.htm>
Less Simple:
<http://www.projectaon.org/test/en/xhtml-less-simple/lw/28thos/title.htm>
Full:
<http://www.projectaon.org/test/en/xhtml/lw/28thos/title.htm>
--
Simon Osborne
Project Aon
~~~~~~
Manage your subscription at //www.freelists.org/list/projectaon
Other related posts:
