[projectaon] Re: Outstanding Errata Sprint (Week 6)
- From: Jonathan Blake <jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: projectaon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 17:22:40 -0700
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 4:42 PM, David Davis <feline1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Blake
>
>> The real question is whether or not Grand Weaponmastery has a bonus of
>> 3 or 5.
>
> OK. Well, for internal consistency in the fictional world of Magnamund, it
> *ought* to be +5.
>
> However it's not! It's +3! It's always been +3! In every edition of the
> Game Rules of every Grand Master and New Order book. There's no real
> arguing with that!
As we've argued in the footnote, this has also happened with
Deliverance where an even more blatant error was perpetuated
throughout the Grand Master and New Order series. If it happened once,
it's not hard to imagine it happening twice.
> I can't see there's any real way to argue that Grand Weaponmastery's Bow
> bonus should be +5 without also arguing that Deliverance should also include
> +1EP per section.
> And I haven't seen anyone arguing that yet! (hah, am I tempting fate?! lol)
Well, the critical difference between the two is that the Deliverance
issue has been explicitly addressed (in LWCN #28):
~~~~~
[Q:] Can you clarify what happens to the +1EP bonus when you progress
from Kai Master to Grand Master? . . .
[A:] The [+1EP] bonus gained when passing through combatless sections
does still apply, but only if you have played and survived the
Magnakai series books. Joe Dever intended this as a 'hidden loyalty
bonus' for readers who had played the earlier books, which is why it
was omitted from the Grand Master rules.
~~~~~
> The thing which made me suspect that the +3 in the Game Rules was definately
> a cut-and-paste error is because I kept finding +5 in actual numbered
> sections.
> I thought this was consistent throughout the books and it was the rules that
> were the exception.
> But meticulous grepping have shown this not to be the case. I was wrong in
> my cursory analysis.
Don't forget that this is motivated by more than your original
analysis at this point. You may have brought this up, but this is an
issue with the rules that has bugged other readers, too, and the
evidence for +5 comes from more than your original analysis.
All of the arguments that you've made here have already been included
in the footnote (except for the one about Flameshaft - I'm not how
that pertains), and certainly these are very strong arguments for
keeping the GW bonus at +3. Given all of the evidence and the strength
of the arguments, I tend to agree that it should be +3, but IMHO the
arguments aren't strong enough either way to tell the reader that it's
wrong to use +5 if that's what they think is most reasonable.
Unless we can find new arguments one way or the other, I think we
should leave it in the readers' hands.
--
Jon
~~~~~~
Manage your subscription at //www.freelists.org/list/projectaon
Other related posts:
