X-Git-Url: http://git.projectaon.org/?a=blobdiff_plain;f=changes%2F04wotw-changes.html;h=220ed8297908309662bd1acf3e047bfd68023fef;hb=adadc9eb344b84ccecc8319d11234847e0efc092;hp=281591956cf1f1427653934f070b1ba7b73e7ef3;hpb=f1715b7f0b0cb16314898419b4d7dccd327e3a72;p=project-aon.git
diff --git a/changes/04wotw-changes.html b/changes/04wotw-changes.html
index 2815919..220ed82 100644
--- a/changes/04wotw-changes.html
+++ b/changes/04wotw-changes.html
@@ -1,3 +1,23 @@
+
+
War of the Wizards: Corrections
@@ -52,6 +72,7 @@
-->
Jonathan Blake
Justin Parks
+Jennifer Sigman
David Davis
Ingo Klöcker
Simon Osborne
@@ -59,26 +80,27 @@
Corrections
-
Title Page #1: THE WORLD OF LONE WOLF -> <cite>The World of Lone Wolf</cite>
Make that <cite>
ok!
-Title Page #2: tumultuous climax to your epic struggle to overthrow -> tumultuous climax of your epic struggle to overthrow
Flows better. Please tell me if this is an innapropriate type of change.
+Title Page #2: tumultuous climax to your epic struggle to overthrow -> tumultuous climax of your epic struggle to overthrow
Flows better. Please tell me if this is an innapropriate type of change.
approved
Acknowledgements #1: frontmatter -> front matter
as in gs01, gs03, lw05, lw06, lw08-lw12
+Of the Coming of Grey Star #1: new found -> newfound
In 1st paragraph. Currently reads new-found. Does this also need changing in Books 1-3?
-The Game Rules #2: For WILLPOWER, add the standard footnote about going below 0 points.
This is the standard footnote: "It is possible for your WILLPOWER to fall below zero. For example, if you are the victim of an attack that drains your WILLPOWER, your score may be forced below zero. If your WILLPOWER falls to zero or below, you will not be able to cast spells or use your Wizard's Staff until your score is again above zero."
I was thinking, we may want to add some instructions about how to treat the Wizard's Staff in combat if your WP is at 0 or below, namely a normal non-magical weapon that has the normal penalty for not using the Wizard's Staff.
I am not sure of the Staff can be used as a normal weapon? But OK, it does say it looks like a normal quarterstaff and is stronger than all known metals, so I guess it should do. Change then "use your Wizard's Staff" -> "use the magical properties of your Wizard's Staff" and and add "You can still use your Wizard's Staff in combat as a normal weapon, but you must deduct 6 points from your COMBAT SKILL." either to this footnote or as a new footnote in Magical Powers, Wizard's Staff?
+The Game Rules #2: For WILLPOWER, add the standard footnote about going below 0 points.
This is the standard footnote: "It is possible for your WILLPOWER to fall below zero. For example, if you are the victim of an attack that drains your WILLPOWER, your score may be forced below zero. If your WILLPOWER falls to zero or below, you will not be able to cast spells or use your Wizard's Staff until your score is again above zero."
I was thinking, we may want to add some instructions about how to treat the Wizard's Staff in combat if your WP is at 0 or below, namely a normal non-magical weapon that has the normal penalty for not using the Wizard's Staff.
I am not sure of the Staff can be used as a normal weapon? But OK, it does say it looks like a normal quarterstaff and is stronger than all known metals, so I guess it should do. Change then "use your Wizard's Staff" -> "use the magical properties of your Wizard's Staff" and and add "You can still use your Wizard's Staff in combat as a normal weapon, but you must deduct 6 points from your COMBAT SKILL." either to this footnote or as a new footnote in Magical Powers, Wizard's Staff?
I would add it to the same footnote, but link to the footnote in both places.
It's in two different sections, so it cannot be the same footnote... unless... no, won't work. So duplicated footnote then.
The Game Rules #3: Remove "If you run out of space, you can copy out the chart or have it photocopied."
-The Game Rules #5: What happens to an existing CS score? Footnote similar to in 03btng (but note that WP and EP are covered already): "This section of the rules implies that you must re-pick your COMBAT SKILL even though you may have already completed a previous adventure. This is without precedent in other books and therefore appears to be a mistake. In order to preserve rule consistency among the books, you may choose to retain your COMBAT SKILL score."
-The Game Rules #6: Endurance Points paragraph
Argh! Again, the sentance "Add *any* ENDURANCE points gained from playing previous Grey Star *adventures* {plural} to your initial score of 30..." is rather problematic. I can't possibly see how it would make sense to add EPs from all three of the previous Grey Star books! Surely it must mean the *last* successfully completed book? (So why use the phrasing as printed, then?). Also, it's standard practice in the Lone Wolf rules to restore your EPs to their original total when carrying them over (Dever explicitly endorses this in a Lone Wolf Club Newsletter) ... but I would hazard a guess that this isn't intended here. (Although the phrase "...points GAINED from playing previous...adventures" certainly doesn't clarify this - the phrase "left over from" would surely be the intended meaning?) ... Adding your restored EP total would just be too much of a bonus, I feel, and spoil gameplay. Hows about the following footnote: "The most likely interpretation of the rules here is that the player can take their final ENDURANCE points total from the end of their last successfully completed Grey Star adventure, and add 30 to this figure. Note that in the rules for the Lone Wolf books, it is standard practice to restore one's ENDURANCE points to their original total when carrying them across from one adventure to the next, but this does not appear to be appropriate here in this scenario with the Moonstone."
-The Game Rules #7: Willpower paragraph
I find the sentence "If you possess unused WILLPOWER points from earlier Grey Star adventures, add them to the 50 WILLPOWER points which possession of the the Moonstone grants you" a bit problematic - it clearly says "adventures", plural - but surely it can only mean the *last* adventure you successfully completed? And of course, there's the whole "what WP score do I actually use - your initial total? the score you had at the end of the book?........... on balance, I'd suggest the following footnote: "The most likely interpretation of the rules here is that the player can take their final WILLPOWER total from the end of their last successfully completed Grey Star adventure, and add 50 to this figure."
-The Game Rules #8: Combat Skill paragraph
Proposed footnote: "This implies that you must pick a new COMBAT SKILL from the Random Number Table even if have already completed previous Grey Star adventure(s). This conflicts with the rules for the Lone Wolf books, where you can carry over your score from a successfully completed previous adventure. For the sake of consistency, players may wish to carry over their existing CS score from the last Grey Star book they completed."
+The Game Rules #5: What happens to an existing CS score? Footnote similar to in 03btng (but note that WP and EP are covered already): "This section of the rules implies that you must re-pick your COMBAT SKILL even though you may have already completed a previous adventure. This is without precedent in other books and therefore appears to be a mistake. In order to preserve rule consistency among the books, you may choose to retain your COMBAT SKILL score."
+The Game Rules #6: Endurance Points paragraph
Argh! Again, the sentance "Add *any* ENDURANCE points gained from playing previous Grey Star *adventures* {plural} to your initial score of 30..." is rather problematic. I can't possibly see how it would make sense to add EPs from all three of the previous Grey Star books! Surely it must mean the *last* successfully completed book? (So why use the phrasing as printed, then?). Also, it's standard practice in the Lone Wolf rules to restore your EPs to their original total when carrying them over (Dever explicitly endorses this in a Lone Wolf Club Newsletter) ... but I would hazard a guess that this isn't intended here. (Although the phrase "...points GAINED from playing previous...adventures" certainly doesn't clarify this - the phrase "left over from" would surely be the intended meaning?) ... Adding your restored EP total would just be too much of a bonus, I feel, and spoil gameplay. Hows about the following footnote: "The most likely interpretation of the rules here is that the player can take their final ENDURANCE points total from the end of their last successfully completed Grey Star adventure, and add 30 to this figure. Note that in the rules for the Lone Wolf books, it is standard practice to restore one's ENDURANCE points to their original total when carrying them across from one adventure to the next, but this does not appear to be appropriate here in this scenario with the Moonstone."
The original intent of the author was most likely that the player should add 30 to their final ENDURANCE score from the end of their last successfully completed <cite>World of Lone Wolf</cite> adventure. In the <cite>Lone Wolf</cite> series, it is standard practice to restore one's ENDURANCE points to their original total when carrying them over from one adventure to the next, but the power of the Moonstone seems to change those rules in this case.
Using GS instead of WoLW in Jon's version.
+The Game Rules #7: Willpower paragraph
I find the sentence "If you possess unused WILLPOWER points from earlier Grey Star adventures, add them to the 50 WILLPOWER points which possession of the the Moonstone grants you" a bit problematic - it clearly says "adventures", plural - but surely it can only mean the *last* adventure you successfully completed? And of course, there's the whole "what WP score do I actually use - your initial total? the score you had at the end of the book?........... on balance, I'd suggest the following footnote: "The most likely interpretation of the rules here is that the player can take their final WILLPOWER total from the end of their last successfully completed Grey Star adventure, and add 50 to this figure."
The original intent of the author was most likely that the player should add 50 to their final WILLPOWER score from the end of their last successfully completed <cite>World of Lone Wolf</cite> adventure.
Using GS instead of WoLW in Jon's version.
+The Game Rules #8: Combat Skill paragraph
Proposed footnote: "This implies that you must pick a new COMBAT SKILL from the Random Number Table even if have already completed previous Grey Star adventure(s). This conflicts with the rules for the Lone Wolf books, where you can carry over your score from a successfully completed previous adventure. For the sake of consistency, players may wish to carry over their existing CS score from the last Grey Star book they completed."
It is implied that you must pick a new COMBAT SKILL from the Random Number Table even if have already completed previous one or more <cite>World of Lone Wolf</cite> adventures. This conflicts with the rules for the <cite>Lone Wolf</cite> books where you carry over your score from a previous successfully completed adventure. For the sake of consistency, players may wish to carry over their existing score from the last <cite>World of Lone Wolf</cite> book they completed.
Using GS instead of WoLW in Jon's version.
+The Game Rules #9: <p>There are sections of this book that describe how you use a Magical Power and how many WILLPOWER points you spend, without giving you a choice and without taking into account that you may not have the required number of WILLPOWER points left. Section 175 contains one such case of mandated use of magic, but it also provides a method for resolving this problem: If you do not have enough WILLPOWER points then you must use ENDURANCE points at a rate of 2 ENDURANCE points for every 1 WILLPOWER point you lack (i.e. 2 ENDURANCE points = 1 WILLPOWER point).</p> <p>You may wish to use this method to resolve this problem in similar situations. If your ENDURANCE score falls to zero, you are dead and the adventure is over.</p> <p>Note that you may not <em>choose</em> to use a Magical Power or your Wizard's Staff if you do not have sufficient WILLPOWER points. This method also cannot be used in cases where you lose WILLPOWER points for a reason other than using magic, for instance as a result of mental or magical attacks. In these cases, you may end up with a negative WILLPOWER score.</p>
@@ -98,6 +120,8 @@
Magical Powers #17: Add a footnote about choosing Powers similar to in 03btng: "The wording of this section of the rules seems to indicate--if read literally--that you may choose your set of Lesser Magicks again if you have completed a previous adventure. This is without precedent in other books. In order to preserve consistency with other books, you should not choose your Lesser Magicks again. If you have currently mastered five Lesser Magicks, you may choose one additional Lesser Magick from the list. If you have already mastered six Lesser Magicks, you keep these. If you choose Alchemy as a new Lesser Magick, or you have not mastered the Lesser Magick of Alchemy but you have selected the Higher Magick of Theurgy, you also receive a Herb Pouch with contents, as detailed in the Equipment section."
damn, this got a bit longwinded.
For the footnote, change "currently master" to "have currently mastered", "already master" to "have already mastered", and "do not master" to "have not mastered".
OK fixed above.
+
+Magical Powers #19: If your WILLPOWER falls to zero or below, you will not be able to use the magical properties of your Wizard's Staff until your score is again above zero. You can still use your Wizard's Staff in combat as a normal weapon, but you must deduct 6 points from your COMBAT SKILL.
A cut-down version of the footnote from Game Rules.
Equipment #1: Add "Mark these 4 items in your Action Chart." below the Alchemny equipment list.
add to Errata!
Done!
Equipment #2: Remove " at the beginning of this book".
@@ -105,7 +129,7 @@
Equipment #5: Add a bookmark about the Herb Pouch similar to in 03btng: "If you have mastered the Lesser Magick of Alchemy or the Higher Magick of Theurgy and therefore have a Herb Pouch, you may choose to keep potions, vials, or ingredients in either the Herb Pouch or your Backpack. All other Backpack Items must be kept in your Backpack."
Equipment #6: If you have chosen Alchemy -> If you have chosen Alchemy or Theurgy
Equipment #7: Un-paragraph the Alchemy equipment list
-Equipment #8: It counts as 1 item -> It counts as one item
+Equipment #8: It counts as 1 item -> It counts as one item
Rules for Combat #2: on the page after the Random Number Table -> in the back of this book
@@ -124,7 +148,8 @@
1 #2: speaking to you. -> speaking to you.'
add to Errata!
There is no such fault! See new addition instead.
1 #3: Wytch-king, Shasarak. -> Wytch-king, Shasarak.'
add to Errata!
Done!
-1 #5: speak again. -> speak again.'
Already added to errata.
+1 #5: speak again. -> speak again.'
Already added to errata.
Incorrect change! Deal with through XSL trick.
+1 #6: Grey Star &ellips; -> Grey Star&ellips;
2 #1: life force -> life-force
as in the PAMoS
@@ -135,12 +160,13 @@
+8 #1: empty vial -> empty Vial
9 #1: If you have versed -> If you are versed
Errata - surprisingly.
9 #2: higher magick -> Higher Magick
as in the PAMoS
9 #3: higher magick -> Higher Magick
as in the PAMoS
9 #4:
Should the links be reordered with the Higher Magick options together at the bottom?
If there was any standard order we'd have, I think it should be: 1) Higher Magicks 2) Lesser Magicks 3) Items 4) Wizard's Staff 5) Nothing (i.e. spend no WP). But I think Jon's latest command was to not change unless really needed for some reason?
It seems that Ian Page made deliberate choices about how to order certain choices sometimes seeming to place the rash, bad choices first, or I could just be seeing patterns where there are none. If there is no such order in this case - I leave that judgment to you - go ahead and reorder according to the scheme mentioned by Thomas. So let it be written, so let it be done.
I'll go through the book and see how many changes this scheme would require... (and then there's all the other books... but I remember on of the two first actually adhering to this scheme already).
I propose changing. See new errata item.
-9 #5: Move the first two choices to the last positions, according to the "qualified before non-qualified" rule.
+9 #5: Move the first two choices to the last positions, according to the "qualified before non-qualified" rule.
10 #1: Theurgey -> Theurgy
10 #2: higher magick -> Higher Magick
as in the PAMoS
@@ -148,11 +174,15 @@
10 #4: higher magick -> Higher Magick
as in the PAMoS
10 #5: powers -> Powers
Errata
+11 #1: Phinomel pods -> Phinomel Pods
cf. Sect 34 Zakutsk Flower
+11 #2:
Should you choose to carry any or all of them in your Backpack, three Phinomel Pods take up one slot (Or just one overall?)
Unnecessary, I think.
12 #1: higher magick -> Higher Magick
as in the PAMoS
12 #2: Dimension door -> Dimension Door
-12 #3: The wordings of the 1st and 3rd choices are confusing I think. The 1st sounds like you have to use Thaumaturgy if you can, but of course you'd rather use a Temeris potion and save some WP. Therefore I propose that we: 1) move the second choice to the first position, and 2) (see the next errata entry).
-12 #4: If you are using -> Otherwise, you may use
This abuses the sentence structure a bit, but it works, or?
+12 #3: The wordings of the 1st and 3rd choices are confusing I think. The 1st sounds like you have to use Thaumaturgy if you can, but of course you'd rather use a Temeris potion and save some WP. Therefore I propose that we: 1) move the second choice to the first position, and 2) (see the next errata entry).
Moonstone, deduct -> Moonstone, you may deduct
Thaumaturgy, deduct -> Thaumaturgy, you may deduct
Keep the same choice order or not?
+12 #4: If you are using -> Otherwise, you may use
This abuses the sentence structure a bit, but it works, or?
I think the other proposed corrections would make this unnecessary.
OK, rejected.
+12 #5:
Make the last paragraph a <choice/>.
Hm I have vague memories we have had this up before, long ago... should all "death sentences" be <choice> encoded?
+12 #6: Freedom guild -> Freedom Guild
@@ -161,8 +191,10 @@
15 #3: higher magick -> Higher Magick
as in the PAMoS
15 #4: higher magick -> Higher Magick
as in the PAMoS
15 #5:
Is there a missing link option that should go here? The final link lists 3 Magical Powers you can use, but you are only given the option of two of them. If not, 'Theurgy' should be removed from the final option.
To reach this section, you have to possess Theurgy, so the first choice implies that you use it. We could perhaps modify the choice text to make it explicit?
Ah, right. Would footnoting this would be best?
I vote for clarifying footnote.
OK, but... hm.
-15 #6: Explain that the first choice means you use Theurgy.
I have no creative idea here. Anyone?
+15 #6: Explain that the first choice means you use Theurgy.
I have no creative idea here. Anyone?
I would suggest that "wish to ask" should become "wish to use the Power of Theurgy and ask"
OK, this becomes an erratum.
+16 #1: Phinomel pods -> Phinomel Pods
cf. Sect 34 Zakutsk Flower; first instance only?
+16 #2:
Should you choose to carry any or all of them in your Backpack, three Phinomel Pods take up one slot (Or just one overall?)
Unnecessary, I think.
18 #1: higher magick -> Higher Magick
as in the PAMoS
@@ -171,6 +203,7 @@
19 #1: higher magick -> Higher Magick
as in the PAMoS
19 #2: these powers -> these Powers
Errata
+19 #3: delete 4 WILLPOWER points from your WILLPOWER score -> deduct 4 WILLPOWER points from your total
Or similar
20 #1: life-less -> lifeless
as in all other books
@@ -181,21 +214,22 @@
24 #1: higher magick -> Higher Magick
as in the PAMoS
24 #2: this power -> this Power
Errata
24 #3: these powers -> these Powers
Errata
-24 #4:
Should there be a footnote explaining that only one 3 WP deduction should occur and only if player chooses that option?
I don't think that's necessary.
+24 #4:
Should there be a footnote explaining that only one 3 WP deduction should occur and only if player chooses that option?
I don't think that's necessary.
unnecessary
25 #1:
Remove all occurrences of '1' from the equipment list.
25 #2: (1) coil of Rope -> Coil of Rope
also
-25 #3: Tinder box -> Tinderbox
As everywhere else.
This is Errata.
-25 #4: What about those sheaths? In 02tfc we added this footnote: "If you wish to take the Sheath, record it as a Special Item on your Action Chart."
-25 #5: 1 Torch counts as 1 Backpack Item -> each Torch counts as one Backpack Item
+25 #3: Tinder box -> Tinderbox
As everywhere else.
This is Errata.
+25 #4: What about those sheaths? In 02tfc we added this footnote: "If you wish to take the Sheath, record it as a Special Item on your Action Chart."
Sounds good to me.
+25 #5: 1 Torch counts as 1 Backpack Item -> each Torch counts as one Backpack Item
+28 #1: evade combat turn -> evade combat, turn
29 #1: Item-slung -> Item&emdash;slung
29 #2: Item-hung -> Item&emdash;hung
29 #3:
Also, remove all instances of '1' in the equipment list x6
-29 #4: high magick -> Higher Magick
This is Errata.
+29 #4: high magick -> Higher Magick
This is Errata.
@@ -214,11 +248,11 @@
34 #10: Demeril root -> Demeril Root
34 #12: The Pestle and Mortar are Backpack Items -> The Pestle and Mortar and the Tinderbox are Backpack Items,
Seems odd that everything except the Tinderbox is accounted for.
-34 #13: 1 Pestle and Mortar -> Pestle and Mortar
Note, keep numbers of the vials as they are, for contrast and in consistency with the Equipment section.
-34 #14: 1 Tinderbox -> Tinderbox
+34 #13: 1 Pestle and Mortar -> Pestle and Mortar
Note, keep numbers of the vials as they are, for contrast and in consistency with the Equipment section.
+34 #14: 1 Tinderbox -> Tinderbox
-36 #1: Tanith have -> Tanith has
Wait here, neither ... nor can be followed by both singular and plural, right?
+36 #1: Tanith have -> Tanith has
Wait here, neither ... nor can be followed by both singular and plural, right?
I recently found out that, formally, "neither" and "either" both take singular verbs. So, formally speaking, this correction should be made.
38 #1: persectuion -> persecution
@@ -226,9 +260,14 @@
38 #5: feet away. The home -> feet away. 'The home
add to Errata!
Done!
+38 #6: Wytchking -> Wytch-king
+39 #2: The first choice requires you to spend 1 WP. Shall we add a footnote there, or change the choice here to include "if you have 1 WP..."?
I'd opt to change the link text accordingly.
Let's go for changing the text for the choice.
+39 #3: Demon Lord, Agarash -> Demonlord Agarash
With or without comma?
I think 'without comma', but not 100% sure ;)
without
+40 #1:
Should you choose to carry any or all of them in your Backpack, three Phinomel Pods take up one slot (Or just one overall?)
Unnecessary, I think.
+40 #2: Phinomel pods -> Phinomel Pods
42 #1: ceatures -> creatures
@@ -245,9 +284,12 @@
47 #1: by the Agarash's inspired state -> by the Agarashi's inspired state
Agarash is a proper noun
Those with the "inspired state of crazed frenzy" are the (other) demons, not Agarash himself, right? I think this should say something else.
Dever later used the term Agarashi when referring to Agarash's minions; does this turn of phrase appear anywhere else in the book? If not, we could get away with inserting "Agarashi's".
I was also thinking about that too, but "Agarashi" is not used anywhere else in any of the GS books.
I vote for changing it to "Agarashi's" and adding an explanatory footnote. Are there any other occurences of this term where this tactic would be helpful?
OK changed above and new footnote issue added.
47 #2: half-way -> halfway
as in the PAMoS
-47 #3: The term <cite>Agarashi</cite> is not used in any other place in the <cite>Worls of Lone Wolf</cite> books, but it is used elsewhere for the monstrous servants of Agarash the Damned.
That footnote really sucks. Better ideas anyone?
How about: "The term Agarashi is not found elsewhere in the World of Lone Wolf series. However, in the more recent Lone Wolf books, Dever has used the term to denote any monstrous servant of Agarash the Damned." Still not that great, though.
+47 #3: The term <cite>Agarashi</cite> is not used in any other place in the <cite>Worls of Lone Wolf</cite> books, but it is used elsewhere for the monstrous servants of Agarash the Damned.
That footnote really sucks. Better ideas anyone?
How about: "The term Agarashi is not found elsewhere in the World of Lone Wolf series. However, in the more recent Lone Wolf books, Dever has used the term to denote any monstrous servant of Agarash the Damned." Still not that great, though.
Although the term <quote>Agarashi</quote> is not used in anywhere else in the <cite>Worlds of Lone Wolf</cite> books, it is used elsewhere as the collective name for the monstrous servants of Agarash the Damned.
I meant: Although the term <quote>Agarashi</quote> is not used anywhere else in the <cite>Worlds of Lone Wolf</cite> books, it is used in other books as the collective term for the monstrous servants of Agarash the Damned.
Using GS instead of WoLW in Jon's version.
+49 #1: empty vials -> empty Vials
I think...?
second occurrence only needs changing, you mean?
Technically maybe only the second, but I think it would look very odd, so I'm for changing both.
I am implementing both.
+49 #2: a Special Item, which may -> an item on your Action Chart. It may
Argh, another of these "Special Item in your Backpack" confusionisms.
LOL! The rules are just a mess, aren't they?
I say lose the bit about making it a Special Item (if this doesn't create any continuity problems).
+49 #3: or your Herb Pouch -> or in your Herb Pouch
50 #1: Intinctively -> Instinctively
50 #2: this power -> this Power
Errata
@@ -258,13 +300,14 @@
+57 #1: leave.' 'I
New paragraph after "leave.' "
58 #1: higher magick -> Higher Magick
as in the PAMoS
58 #2: your power -> your Power
??
Errata
-58 #3: Move the 3rd choice up to the 1st position, according to the "qualified before non-qualified" rule.
+58 #3: Move the 3rd choice up to the 1st position, according to the "qualified before non-qualified" rule.
-60 #1: Tanith have -> Tanith has
See sect36 #1!
+60 #1: Tanith have -> Tanith has
See sect36 #1!
@@ -297,11 +340,12 @@
82 #1: reptillian -> reptilian
+84 #1: empty vial -> empty Vial
86 #1: higher magick -> Higher Magick
as in the PAMoS
86 #2: higher magick -> Higher Magick
as in the PAMoS
-86 #3: This section is missing a choice for what to do if you do not have any of the Magical Powers! However, 280 has one: "If you do not possess any of the above Powers, you must attack the bridge with your Staff; turn to 175."
+86 #3: This section is missing a choice for what to do if you do not have any of the Magical Powers! However, 280 has one: "If you do not possess any of the above Powers, you must attack the bridge with your Staff; turn to 175."
I think it's OK to add that choice.
@@ -309,16 +353,18 @@
91 #1: clutches at it's clawed hand -> clutches at its clawed hand
91 #2: strenghtening -> strengthening
-91 #3: sorcery -> Sorcery
Is it the Power of Sorcery or sorcery in general?
Errata. Don't know whether to change this or not.
+91 #3: sorcery -> Sorcery
Is it the Power of Sorcery or sorcery in general?
Errata. Don't know whether to change this or not.
This change shall be reverted! You have actully not chosen to use Sorcery here, but Thaumathurgy.
93 #1: materialzed -> materialized
+96 #1: again &ellips; -> again&ellips;
97 #1: semi-circle -> semicircle
as in the PAMoS
+98 #1: moments &ellips; -> moments&ellips;
99 #1: fast flowing -> fast-flowing
as in the PAMoS
I assume that there was a "fast-flowing" at the other end of that arrow. :)
Fixed.
@@ -327,15 +373,17 @@
104 #1: crowd of demons are -> crowd of demons is
+104 #2: This is a WP usage you cannot avoid. Footnote with ref to the sect175 method?
Or is it impossible to have run out of WP here?
Barring figuring out that it is impossible, footnote as you mention
-108 #1: enchantment -> Enchantment
Is it the Power of Enchantment or enchantment in general?
Errata
I'm not currently somewhere where I can view the graph to check, but I assume that there was no mention of which power was used when getting to this section. I vote for capitalization.
Section 170 has "If you have the Magical Power of Enchantment...". I don't quite see what you mean?
+108 #1: enchantment -> Enchantment
Is it the Power of Enchantment or enchantment in general?
Errata
I'm not currently somewhere where I can view the graph to check, but I assume that there was no mention of which power was used when getting to this section. I vote for capitalization.
Section 170 has "If you have the Magical Power of Enchantment...". I don't quite see what you mean?
Enchantment
+112 #1: This is a WP usage you cannot avoid. Footnote with ref to the sect175 method?
Or is it impossible to have run out of WP here?
Barring figuring out that it is impossible, footnote as you mention
113 #1: magical Power -> Magical Power
Errata
@@ -358,6 +406,8 @@
129 #1: life force -> life-force
as in the PAMoS
+129 #2: Come &ellips; -> Come&ellips;
+129 #3: arch enemy -> archenemy
Maybe? Or arch-enemy?
arch-enemy
@@ -368,8 +418,12 @@
137 #1: group of demons are rushing -> group of demons is rushing
+137 #2: Move the illustration to Section 139 where it actually fits the text of the section!
Blimey! After checking up you're absolutely right. I'd second this.
+139 #1: Move illustration 8 here, and give it the new caption "Your heart misses a beat as a huge pair of monstrous eyes appears within the flames of the portal."
Blimey! After checking up you're absolutely right. I'd second this.
+139 #2: The horde stop -> The horde stops
+139 #3: This is a WP usage you cannot avoid. Footnote with ref to the sect175 method?
Or is it impossible to have run out of WP here?
Barring figuring out that it is impossible, footnote as you mention
141 #1: large, reptilian -> large reptilian
@@ -380,6 +434,7 @@
+145 #1: You are never asked to deduct the 1 WP that section 92 required of you to have to get here. Footnote?
footnote it
147 #1: small, black -> small black
@@ -397,12 +452,14 @@
+158 #1: Who? &ellips; Who? &ellips; -> Who?&ellips; Who?&ellips;
Or... shall the spaces remain there?
spaces should go away
159 #1: higher magick -> Higher Magick
as in the PAMoS
159 #2: these powers -> these Powers
Errata
161 #1: higher magick -> Higher Magick
as in the PAMoS
+161 #2: Link to 178 is missing
ne - the '1' is an 'l' so the XML encoder script missed it.
162 #1: power of Prophecy -> Power of Prophecy
Errata
@@ -410,13 +467,14 @@
165 #1: higher magick -> Higher Magick
as in the PAMoS
-166 #1: clawed feet tells -> clawed feet tell
Wait - note that it says "The scratch and scuffle of clawed feet tells ...". I disagree, even though it's "scratch and scuffle".
+166 #1: clawed feet tells -> clawed feet tell
Wait - note that it says "The scratch and scuffle of clawed feet tells ...". I disagree, even though it's "scratch and scuffle".
Agreed, er... vetoed - the change that is. "tells"
+167 #1: Demon lord -> Demon Lord
or Demonlord
Demonlord
169 #1: WILLPDWER -> WILLPOWER
-170 #1: growling and howling of the pack draws -> growling and howling of the pack draw
Disagree, see 166 #1.
+170 #1: growling and howling of the pack draws -> growling and howling of the pack draw
Disagree, see 166 #1.
similarly vetoed. "draws"
170 #2: demon horde are -> demon horde is
170 #3: half-way -> halfway
Duplicate.
170 #4: out-rider -> outrider
as twice in lw15
@@ -430,9 +488,10 @@
-175 #1:
This raises an interesting precedent. Could this be an alternative rule for negative WP scores?
I'd definately vote that we draw attention to it in the general Rules section where we discuss the possibility of "negative willpower". It still doesn't quite do away with the fact that the text in places has said "if your willpower has fallen to zero OR LESS" (am I remembering that correctly?) but it seems a good workable way to deal with the issue, and I think we'd do well to commend it to players as a rules suggestion.
I don't know if we should include it in the rules sections, but we could add footnotes in the places where you are told to use WP for a spell with no option to abstain. I don't think it's too many places actually; most are probably in the second half of 02tfc. Note that by only allowing it in these places, it is still possible to get negative WP when faced with Kleasas or Mother Magris.
-
+175 #1:
This raises an interesting precedent. Could this be an alternative rule for negative WP scores?
I'd definately vote that we draw attention to it in the general Rules section where we discuss the possibility of "negative willpower". It still doesn't quite do away with the fact that the text in places has said "if your willpower has fallen to zero OR LESS" (am I remembering that correctly?) but it seems a good workable way to deal with the issue, and I think we'd do well to commend it to players as a rules suggestion.
I don't know if we should include it in the rules sections, but we could add footnotes in the places where you are told to use WP for a spell with no option to abstain. I don't think it's too many places actually; most are probably in the second half of 02tfc. Note that by only allowing it in these places, it is still possible to get negative WP when faced with Kleasas or Mother Magris.
I seem to remember that Grey Star the Wizard had many such situations also. I lean toward one footnote in the rules. It might be kind to the reader to add a reminder footnote for each situation that we recognize, but with one footnote in the rules section, they have no excuse to be confused when it happens even if we neglect to put it in the section. We can do both if that helps everyone sleep better at night. *smile*
+175 #2: lack. (ie 2 -> lack (i.e. 2
+176 #1: Demon lord -> Demon Lord
or Demonlord
Demonlord
@@ -454,8 +513,10 @@
191 #1: that of hate, for, indeed, I hate you, -> that of hate, for indeed I hate you,
Talks, like, William,... Shatner.
+191 #2: long &ellips; -> long&ellips;
+193 #1: This is a WP usage you cannot avoid. Footnote with ref to the sect175 method? Or change section 118, requiring you to have 2 WP to go here?
Or is it impossible to have run out of WP here?
Barring figuring out that it is impossible, footnote as you mention
194 #1: higher magick -> Higher Magick
as in the PAMoS
194 #2: these powers -> these Powers
Errata
@@ -470,7 +531,7 @@
200 #1: shuffling column reach -> shuffling column reaches
200 #2: higher magick -> Higher Magick
as in the PAMoS
-201 #1: shore', he says -> shore,' he says
This is already correct in the XML file?
+201 #1: shore', he says -> shore,' he says
This is already correct in the XML file?
This is definitely Errata and still present. " 'I witnessed your struggle with the demons from the shore', he says."
Duh. Yes, sorry.
201 #2: great host of Masbaté warriors wait. -> great host of Masbaté warriors waits.
201 #3: wariors -> warriors
201 #4: you ashore. I am -> you ashore. 'I am
add to Errata!
Done!
@@ -488,7 +549,7 @@
208 #1: higher magick -> Higher Magick
as in the PAMoS
208 #2: these powers -> these Powers
Errata
-208 #3: Magical Power of Thaumaturgy -> Higher Magick of Thaumaturgy
Higher Magicks are otherwise always noted as such.
+208 #3: Magical Power of Thaumaturgy -> Higher Magick of Thaumaturgy
Higher Magicks are otherwise always noted as such.
@@ -499,7 +560,7 @@
-216 #1: pupiless -> pupilless (or pupil-less)
I think this is strange enough that I vote for "pupil-less".
Yuk! two hyphenated letter l's, I think that looks very ugly - I much prefer Ian Page's "pupiless"
Urgh, the Shadakine have eyes like female pupils? Any of the others, but not "pupiless"!
I just found a comparable example (in the Oxford Dictionary no less): "tailless" as in "a tailless cat". So I still opt for "pupilless" even though the Internet seems to favour "pupiless" with about 6:5.
+216 #1: pupiless -> pupilless (or pupil-less)
I think this is strange enough that I vote for "pupil-less".
Yuk! two hyphenated letter l's, I think that looks very ugly - I much prefer Ian Page's "pupiless"
Urgh, the Shadakine have eyes like female pupils? Any of the others, but not "pupiless"!
I just found a comparable example (in the Oxford Dictionary no less): "tailless" as in "a tailless cat". So I still opt for "pupilless" even though the Internet seems to favour "pupiless" with about 6:5.
OK, you've convinced me: "pupilless".
217 #1: higher magick -> Higher Magick
as in the PAMoS
217 #2: enchantment -> Enchantment
Is it the Power of Enchantment or enchantment in general?
I think this is being used generally and should be left uncapitalised.
Agreed, "enchantment".
Yeah it's a generic use of enchantment.
@@ -525,6 +586,7 @@
229 #1: Half-way -> Halfway
+230 #1: Pin-points -> Pinpoints
as per PAMoS
Wait a minute... Is the PAMoS entry valid for the noun as well as for the verb?
Both noun and verb
@@ -563,6 +625,8 @@
+254 #1: He comes &ellips; the Grey One comes &ellips; -> He comes&ellips; the Grey One comes&ellips;
+254 #2: the key &ellips; the Masterstone &ellips; our -> the key&ellips; the Masterstone&ellips; our
255 #1: sorcery -> Sorcery
??
I think this should be changed, yes.
@@ -570,6 +634,8 @@
+260 #1: Wytchking -> Wytch-king
+260 #2: Wytches &ellips; and -> Wytches&ellips; and
@@ -577,6 +643,7 @@
+267 #1: halt &ellips; -> halt&ellips;
268 #1: miles lies -> miles lie
@@ -595,6 +662,7 @@
280 #2: higher magick -> Higher Magick
as in the PAMoS
280 #3: the above powers -> the above Powers
Errata
280 #4: Choice #4's link to 59 is obviously wrong. 175 is the right target (and this section is otherwise an orphan).
+280 #5: time &ellips; no -> time&ellips; no
282 #1: crosed -> crossed
@@ -613,17 +681,19 @@
291 #1: shield of sorcery -> Shield of Sorcery
And mark it as a <spell>. We did similarly in 02TFC.
Errata. Note issue 2 refers to this issue.
OK, removing issue 2.
-293 #1: horde begin -> horde begins
This is debatable, but I don't think a horde can gloat as a group, therefore "begin". I know this ignores other instances of the same rule, but this is a subjective rule.
I really think "begins" sounds better here, but some other cases in this book: sect139 "The horde stop", sect174 "The horde falters", sect221 "The horde comes". I'd change 139.
+293 #1: horde begin -> horde begins
This is debatable, but I don't think a horde can gloat as a group, therefore "begin". I know this ignores other instances of the same rule, but this is a subjective rule.
I really think "begins" sounds better here, but some other cases in this book: sect139 "The horde stop", sect174 "The horde falters", sect221 "The horde comes". I'd change 139.
OK, "begins" for this section, and please change 139.
293 #2: battle cry -> battle-cry
as in the PAMoS
294 #1: backpack -> Backpack
Errata
-294 #2: empty vial -> empty Vial
This is Errata.
+294 #2: empty vial -> empty Vial
This is Errata.
-298 #1: over Tanith imperils -> over Tanith imperil
Disagree. I read "Mother Magri and her power over Tanith" as a unity. Is there a clear rule for this?
Absolutely - the original text is fine & correct.
+298 #1: over Tanith imperils -> over Tanith imperil
Disagree. I read "Mother Magri and her power over Tanith" as a unity. Is there a clear rule for this?
Absolutely - the original text is fine & correct.
I don't know that there's a clear rule for this one, but I would chalk it up to Mother Magri and her power acting as one.
298 #2: magical powers -> Magical Powers
Does GS refer to the "game term" or...?
I would leave this alone since it isn't referring to a specific Magical Power.
I vote to change it because it refers to Grey Star's powers which are the Magical Powers not generic magical powers.
yup
+298 #3: new-found -> newfound
+298 #4: Who &ellips; who -> Who&ellips; who
@@ -649,6 +719,8 @@
+316 #1: cannot . . -> cannot . . .
+316 #2: demon lord -> Demon Lord
or Demonlord
Demonlord
317 #1: fomation -> formation
317 #2: Combat last -> Combat lasts
@@ -659,20 +731,25 @@
321 #1: higher magick -> Higher Magick
as in the PAMoS
+322 #1: demon lord -> Demon Lord
or Demonlord
Demonlord
324 #1: war horn -> war-horn
as in the PAMoS
+326 #1: see &ellips; -> see&ellips;
328 #1: Shadkine -> Shadakine
328 #2: higher magick -> Higher Magick
as in the PAMoS
-328 #3: The first choice seems to allow you to teleport without cost! Proposed footnote: "If you possess a Temeris Potion you can teleport without using any WILLPOWER points. If you are versed in the Higher Magick of Thaumaturgy you can teleport by deducting 2 WILLPOWER points from your total. To use the Dimension Door of the Moonstone to teleport, deduct 4 WILLPOWER points. (Cf. Section 12.)
+328 #3: The first choice seems to allow you to teleport without cost! Proposed footnote: "If you possess a Temeris Potion you can teleport without using any WILLPOWER points. If you are versed in the Higher Magick of Thaumaturgy you can teleport by deducting 2 WILLPOWER points from your total. To use the Dimension Door of the Moonstone to teleport, deduct 4 WILLPOWER points. (Cf. Section 12.)
approved
331 #1: six items -> eight items
+331 #2: Tamara -> Tarama
as per GS1 Sect 183 et al
+331 #3:
Tarama Seeds may be recorded as Special Items since they don't take up space in your Herb Pouch or Backpack. Each Tarama Seed can be used to cast exactly one spell or to use your Wizard's Staff outside of close combat (e.g. to fire a bolt of energy at a distant enemy) without using the normally required WILLPOWER points. Tarama Seeds cannot be used to maintain the effect of a spell or in place of other drains on your WILLPOWER, like mental attacks. It also seems inappropriate to use a Tarama Seed in close combat where you could then decide to expend an infinite amount of WILLPOWER to automatically win a fight. (as taken from book 1)
+331 #4: Phinomel pods -> Phinomel Pods
cf. Sect 34 Zakutsk Flower
332 #1: tree-tops -> treetops
as in gs02, gs03, lw11, lw15 (2x)
@@ -680,12 +757,15 @@
336 #1: Remember that your Herb Pouch will hold up to six items may be stored in your Backpack. -> Remember that your Herb Pouch can hold up to eight items, and any other potions may be stored in your Backpack.
+336 #2: Tamara -> Tarama
as per GS1 Sect 183 et al
+336 #3:
Tarama Seeds may be recorded as Special Items since they don't take up space in your Herb Pouch or Backpack. Each Tarama Seed can be used to cast exactly one spell or to use your Wizard's Staff outside of close combat (e.g. to fire a bolt of energy at a distant enemy) without using the normally required WILLPOWER points. Tarama Seeds cannot be used to maintain the effect of a spell or in place of other drains on your WILLPOWER, like mental attacks. It also seems inappropriate to use a Tarama Seed in close combat where you could then decide to expend an infinite amount of WILLPOWER to automatically win a fight. (as taken from book 1)
+336 #4: Phinomel pods -> Phinomel Pods
cf. Sect 34 Zakutsk Flower
337 #2: higher magick -> Higher Magick
as in the PAMoS
337 #3: higher magick -> Higher Magick
as in the PAMoS
337 #4: hail of arrows that fly -> hail of arrows that flies
-337 #5: Move the 1st choice to the last position, according to the "qualified before non-qualified" rule.
+337 #5: Move the 1st choice to the last position, according to the "qualified before non-qualified" rule.
@@ -696,6 +776,7 @@
343 #1: superstitous -> superstitious
+345 #1: arch enemy -> archenemy
Maybe? Or arch-enemy?
arch-enemy
347 #1: higher magick -> Higher Magick
as in the PAMoS
@@ -703,20 +784,30 @@
+350 #1: demon lord -> Demon Lord
or Demonlord
Demonlord
352 #1: higher magick -> Higher Magick
as in the PAMoS
353 #1: higher magick -> Higher Magick
as in the PAMoS
353 #2: higher magick -> Higher Magick
as in the PAMoS
-353 #3: This section is missing a choice for what to do if you do not have any of the Magical Powers! However, 280 has one: "If you do not possess any of the above Powers, you must attack the bridge with your Staff; turn to 175."
+353 #3: This section is missing a choice for what to do if you do not have any of the Magical Powers! However, 280 has one: "If you do not possess any of the above Powers, you must attack the bridge with your Staff; turn to 175."
Again, I'm good with adding this.
+353 #4: magnificent &ellips; -> magnificent&ellips;
+353 #5: time &ellips; no -> time&ellips; no
+355 #1: Do we need a footnote explaining how this actually works? Does it mean that you can increase your CS for the rest of the adventure?
Assuming we're talking about the Alether, we can add a "for the duration of the combat".
Oops, that should have been for section 355
I always assumed that it was a permanent change. Yes, we probably need a footnote for this, but we don't have any solid evidence to back us up. Are there any other opinions on how this bonus should work?
I second the assumption of a permanent change... that's how I always handled it, anyways.
What about "It appears that for every Phinomel pod that you possess and wish to throw into the Leafwater pool, you may permanently raise your COMBAT SKILL by 1 when using your Wixard's Staff. Remember to delete these Phinomel pods from your Action Chart."
+356 #1: not &ellips; -> not&ellips;
+360 #1: 'The demon lord, Agarash -> 'The demon lord Agarash
Replaced by #3
+360 #2: Add a simple link to The Passing of the Shianti.
Shall the explanatory footnote be here or in 'Passing...'?
Link added, in the meantime.
Explanatory note should probably be in the Passing section.
+360 #3: demon lord, Agarash -> Demonlord Agarash
+360 #4: Passing oof the Shianti -> The Passing of the Shianti
+360 #5: The portal &ellips; Agarash &ellips; is he &ellips;? -> The portal&ellips; Agarash&ellips; is he&ellips;?
@@ -765,6 +856,7 @@
+Illustration VIII #1: You hurl a cascading rain of magical fire on to the head of the demonic horde below. -> Your heart misses a beat as a huge pair of monstrous eyes appears within the flames of the portal.
@@ -778,7 +870,9 @@
-
+The Passing of the Shianti #1: Wytch-Queen -> Wytch-queen
just like Wytch-king
(Wytch-Queen -> Wytch-queen) This is Errata.
Approved. I think this can be considered "ne".
+The Passing of the Shianti #2: artifacts -> artefacts
Except it was in the Newsletter, so I don't think it counts as Errata.
erratum
+The Passing of the Shianti #3: This epilogue to the <cite>Grey Star</cite> series was included in <cite>Lone Wolf Club Newsletter 7</cite>.