I totally agree.
We had to rule about that one IOS as one of the player has the flaws "Twilight Prone" and "Weird Magic" : getting a "botch" with the weird dice doesn't trigger Twilight.
But it's true you could interpret RAW the other way.
Nicolas
Yes, I would, especially considering ArM5 suggests exactly that: "and if the Weird Magic botch occurs along with a regular botch, the results could be truly spectacular."
Yes, that would be a three-dice botch for me. Note my quote above. Not considering it more than a two-dice botch would also be inconsistent with the text of the flaw, part of ArM5.
I think you've misstated something and so I don't understand. If the flaw is too small to be a minor flaw, then how would it be big enough to be a major flaw?
Chris
I forgot to reply to this part:
If it's specifically meant to cause different effects, then why did the writers keep writing "botch" when they didn't need to do so? They could have said to roll a separate die and if that comes up a 0 then you have some special thing happen. They did not do that. They wrote "botch," and they wrote it repeatedly.
Knowing that they could have written it differently and yet they chose instead to specify "botch" repeatedly, it seems extremely consistent to consider this a true botch with a suggestion that the storyguide should choose a specific type of special thing to happen in that case.
Chris
Because thats the mechanic used...
And if they had done that, how many would then be complaining about how dreadfully complex the flaw is?
No, you misinterpret(which i might add isnt hard in this case). As YOU interpret the flaw, it SHOULD be a Major flaw instead.
Oh dear... No AM5 most certainly doesnt suggest that. It suggests that the combination of a botch and a "weird" can make the end result "truly spectacular". Which, considering what normal botches can result in, isnt surprising.
The fact that the text specifically separates it into "regular botch" and "weird magic botch" should be enough to tell you that. Otherwise it wouldnt say either that or bother with saying how weird botches should be "strange or bizarre rather than dangerous", because than it would just be an additionally dangerous botch. A normal botch is usually dangerous, but according to you a weird botch equals a regular one, meaning that if you get only a single die botch, from the weird die, then by your logic you get hit by BOTH the effects of a regular botch AND that of a weird botch. Clearly in contradiction with how its written.
I´m sorry but i think your reasoning is totally flawed and completely wrong.
It would be much simpler than saying "botch" repeatedly and asking for an assumption to ignore the word "botch" with appropriate but unnamed discretion, which is what you're saying is the right interpretation.
Ah, I now see what you meant. No, that wasn't very clear, but now I see. You should try being more careful with pronouns and modifiers. Why should my interpretation make the flaw major? Removing 3 dice is minor. Why is adding one die major? Besides, I'm interpreting the flaw exactly as written, not interpreting it as though they wanted you to assume they don't mean "botch" when they write "botch." I'm fine with groups doing just that, but doing thatspe doesn't invalidate the direct reading of the flaw.
But that's exactly what you asked me!!! You asked me if I would consider the combination of a regular double-botch and a weird botch to be more than just a regular double-botch. Maybe your forgot what you asked, though I did quote it. Or maybe you forgot you only gave me 2 or 3 to choose from and it's implied that it would be more than 2.
Why do you confuse additionally large with additionally dangerous. I didn't say it had to be more dangerous than a double-botch. Use the danger of a double-botch and add some additional weirdness to give it the magnitude of a triple-botch.
Yes, usually, but not always.
No, I never said that. Go back and read everything again. I said a weird botch is a regular one with restricted choices, that you restrict yourself to the unusual other options (as opposed to the usual dangerous ones). That's not the same as calling them equal. You have misread or misunderstood.
What I've said doesn't come close to implying that by any logic.
Also, note what you said above. First you said I said a weird botch equals a regular one. Then you said what I said implies a weird botch is more than a regular one. For both of your statements to be true you must believe a regular botch is more than a regular botch. Really? Otherwise you've clearly used your logic incorrectly.
I'm reading it straight from the book without any reinterpretation. Sorry, but if you think my reasoning is wrong, your reasoning is necessarily wrong. I'm using it exactly as written because I think it was written as intended. Many others are saying it wasn't written quite as it was intended. That's fine. But that doesn't invalidate the viewpoint that what was written is what was intended.
Chris
If you want pretty and/or commercial grade language from me, you´ll have to pay for it ( translator and proofreader you know? ).
Im more often than not quite careful overall with how i write though, force of habit. Not always, but mostly...
In this case though, it COULD be misinterpreted but it wasnt ambigious enough to make me want to rephrase.
You simply read it based on your preconception of it.
Because for magi, it cuts down on their likely lifetime quite severely as they will probably end up in final twilight much sooner than without it.
By being careful or mastering spells, you can cut down on warping points and botches without Cautious sorcerer, but getting a botch die that you CANT get rid of no matter what, thats totally NOT nice.
It drastically increases the probability of gaining warping points and entering twilight.
So am i...
Again you´re misinterpreting what im saying it seems.
Spectacular isnt the same as worse. Having a botch with 3 dice instead of 2 is WORSE, having a botch with 2 dice +weird isnt supposed to be worse than a 2 dice botch, but as dangerous as with 2 dice and alot more ODD, as in strange/bizarre...
You specifically stated that you treat 2+1 just as 3. Which does mean more dangerous.
I did... Several times already.
No thats what you said.
That was the only way i could interpret the implications of what you said.
In case you failed to notice, i was looking at YOUR answers and using them as basis. Its what you believe here (or possibly how you state it) that is the issue not me.
According to your previous answers, no. According to your latest post, i simply cant say for sure...
Ill restate a few questions instead.
In a 2+1 botch situation you use the danger level of a 2 botch? ("magnitude of a triple-botch" suggests otherwise)
If only a weird die gives a "botch", is the result odd, dangerous or both and does it cause warping?
If you also have Twilight prone, does a weird only botch cause twilight?
So, are you actually saying Careless Sorcerer should be a major Flaw? Because it adds 2 botch dices, whereas Weird Magic adds one.
Nope. Although its potentially plenty bad enough for it.
Weird "always" adds an extra die you cant get rid of, Careless adds 2 dice that you CAN get rid of.
Thats a big difference.
Well, let's ignore all the problems with apostrophes even though one of them would entirely change the word it should be attached to. Now let's look at what you wrote, with the apostrophe corrected: "it's just too 'small' a flaw. It should very probably be a major flaw then." Do you seriously not see much ambiguity there? Or is it that you see all the ambiguity and tons of ambiguity isn't enough?
The flaw says "botch." Each 0 of a botch adds a twilight point. You've said there shouldn't be a twilight point. So no, you're not. I'm not opposed to your interpretation for use in some games, but it's not exactly how the flaw is written.
You asked me to choose between two options: 2 and 3. I've already reminded you of this. If you wanted me to choose between more options, then you should have given then to me. You're doing a bait and switch with words. I'm sure you can be more polite than that.
Yet here you've missed something, too. 3 need not be worse than 2. Do notice the "should" that is used when it need not be on page 87. That one word could be deleted, keeping the sentence perfectly intact and changing that part of the sentence from a strong suggestion to an command. But the "should" is there nonetheless.
Yet 1 added botch die would be less than Careless Sorcerer, a minor virtue.
And who says you can't get rid of that botch die no matter what? You do, but the rules don't. How about Spell Mastery? That can potentially reduce botch dice to 0. Weird Magic adds a botch die. Why can't that botch die be removed? You will find you cannot make a successful argument that it can't be removed. How about casting the spell in a non-stressful situation? Poof! There goes the botch die from Weird Magic, removed with ease. You may choose to rule against these, but that's all you're doing.
First, note your "no," denying you said that. Yet you did say I said that. (Look at what I quoted from you.) Yes, you are admitting you were mistaken and changing your position.
Second: where did I say that? Please quote it to me. If it's there, you should be able to quote it to me.
Yet it wasn't logically implied at all by what I said...
According to what you wrote above you were not using my answers. Look just look two quotes above.You admitted you were incorrect about what I said. Now here you're taking that back?
Then I challenge you to find one thing I've said that actually contradicts what's written in the rules. No, you haven't done this yet. All I've been saying is that I read "botch" as "botch" and that I follow the statement that that particular botch die's effect should be weird but not inherently dangerous.
If only a weird die gives a "botch", is the result odd, dangerous or both and does it cause warping?
If you also have Twilight prone, does a weird only botch cause twilight?
[/quote]
I've answered a lot of these quite explicitly. But since for some reason you need me to answer again, I'll repeat a bunch of my answers:
- Yes, I would use that danger level of a double-botch. Then I would add some weird flare on top of that to make it more spectacular.
- Yes, it's a botch and botches with spells give warping points. Warping points are not necessarily dangerous. All three of my current characters actually want more warping points, yet none are even Criamon magi. Even twilight isn't inherently dangerous, though this die on its own could not cause twilight. I would make the effect weird but not inherently dangerous. For example, if you botch a Pilum of Fire I would not have it hit you, but I might turn it into a Pilum of Fireflies harmlessly flying away as they're launched at your target.
- Yes, with Twilight Prone I would have you roll for twilight. You did botch with a spell (explicitly stated in Weird Magic). Botching a spell gives you a warping point. A single warping point along with Twilight Prone makes you check for twilight. Twilight Prone is a major flaw; I don't see a reason to try to avoid using it.
Chris
No, Weird Magic doesn't always add a botch die. It only does so with stressed spell casting.
Second, why can't Spell Mastery get rid of that die? It is a botch die. Spell Mastery does reduce botch dice. No exception is stated in either Weird Magic's entry or the paragraph about Spell Mastery reducing botch dice.
Chris
Dudes, I think now it is a good moment to remind everybody that:
-
This is a GAME and we play it for FUN.
-
Every troupe and their mothers read the rules, and then play similar games, but you will be extremely hard pressed to find 2 troupes that interpret the thousdands of rules in ArM5 exactly equal. You have found a case where this is not equal between 2 troupes. Generally, both can be correct. Otherwise lawyers would have run out of work a long time ago
-
Point number 2 is NOT A PROBLEM AT ALL!!!
If it works for your troupe, it is cool 
Live and let live
Cheers,
Xavi