So it appears to me that the dice are cast: there will be no rewrites of Wards or Magic Resistance, and no clarifications of the many rather minor issues you raised. No need to insist further, I'd say.
IIRC this was referring to the issue of CHANGING the rules to say MR does not apply. What I was asking is a CLARIFICATION that MR does apply. (Or doesn't, I don't care which I just want things clearer.) I'm asking for the rules to be written so they will be more obvious, not that they will be necessarily changed (except in those cases where they are contradictionary).
You mean "Errata: Yes, I'm going through the latest errata list and making corrections."? I rather hope Atlas will not stick to that list exclusively, but rather take the opportunity to collect more errata to make the second printing even better. There is nothing in the sentence that makes me think there is no place for such a hope.
:shrug: I'm not "insisting" on anything. I'm raising issues I'd like to see addressed. (Hopefully before the second printing, because that will allow me to get an even better book.) If the Powers That Be decide to ignore these issues, that's their call. I think merely raising them has merit in of itself, compiling a list of "perceived problems".
page 160, Perdo Vim spell guidelines, General, says, "Reduce a target's Might by the level of the spell +10..." Likewise, Demon's Eternal Oblivion (same page), says that "...the demon loses Might equal to the spell's level."
The insertion of the word 'Score' or the word 'Points' after each of these instances of the word 'Might' would be mighty helpful.
The problem is that both guideline and spell leave it ambiguous whether you're destroying Might Points or Might Score. If it's points, then you can't actually destroy demons, ghosts, &c with perdo vim. If it's score, then you can, but if you don't manage to finish the job, the demon, ghost, or whatever can't ever recover from whatever you did. I don't know which seemingly silly effect was intended. It's the ambiguity that's the problem; the word "Might" on its own is ambiguous between Score and Points.
I misunderstood you, and thought that you wondered about the +10 in the Guideline which did not appear in the spell.
You see, the "Might = Might Score or Might Pool?" subject has been ridden to death some umpteen times now, so I did not believe that you brought the above quotes up again just to explain that old chestnut.
But looking it up, I indeed found no mention of this newbie trap in the FAQ or errata. So I second your motion to finally lay it to eternal rest under a solid erratum for a tombstone.
As far as I know, it is the Might Score that goes down (meaning MR goes down, but expended Might Points do not count), but it is recovered after 24h. I can't remember if it was pointed out on the ArM5 list or on the Berklist...
There is nothing that says that Might Scores can never be recovered -- only that some powers require a permanent Might (Score) expenditure.
On the other hand, there is, so far as I know, nothing that says that Might Scores can be recovered. If someone can find an actual page reference to how Might Scores can be recovered, I'd love it if they'd let me know, but since we've been over this and no one has, I'm guessing that there is no such reference. While it does slightly broaden the concept of errata to include such clarification, the designers might wish to consider adding a sentence to p. 191 stating either that Might Score is never recovered, or else stating how it is. (Since someone got touchy about the definition of "errata," I left this additional suggestion out of my original post, even though it's a change that, it seems to me, needs making.)
Well ... ArM5 Merinitae with Faerie Might due to Transforming the Spirit can repeat that ritual, and thus gain a new Faerie Might score superseding the previous one - whether that was previously reduced by some PeVi spell or not.
ArM4 Theurgists could restore lost or spent Magic Might by recasting 'Salvation's Progress' at an appropriate time. So we will see whether something like that is in store in TMRE again.
And I'd say that it is quite evident that the Might of an angel returning to the Empyreum can be restored by Divine will, and the Might of a demon returning to the Abyss be replenished by further Infernal investiture. Whether this really occurs and how long it takes is in both cases a storyguide decision.
I feel that this issue is in general rather a domain for reasoned storyguide decisions than for rules. A church faerie, isolated from other faeries and surrounded by the Divine Realm, might indeed have no way to regenerate lost Might, while a faerie horse might do so by returning to its herd and staying with it for a year in the hills with the Faerie Aura.
How about we have a compromise, and have there be a rule that says that this is a domain for reasoned storyguide decisions? That way, at a minimum, you don't have storyguide deciding that there's no rule, but also fearing that one of her players will find the actual rule....
This isn't included in the current errata. I was thinking of leaving a comment at the main Atlas page. However perhaps we could summarize all of our pending questions here and leave one comment for our editor at large to address rather than expect him to shift through this ever changing thread/board?
This one is a clear erratum, and will be included in the corrections to the second printing. (It should be Score.) The other points raised in the thread are more ambiguous, and since the second printing is going to the press very soon now (can't have the core book out of print for long), they won't be addressed there.
Well I proposed it, so I guess I'll do it. Since it won't matter for the next edition I won't race. But I'll try to cut and paste the various points we've discussed into a readable format. Perhaps I'll repost it so the peanut gallery can comment and then send it? Am I really committing to this? Oh boy I sense a headache comeing...
Ok, this wasn't as bad as I imagined. I cut and paste this entire thread into a document, I tried to clump things into groups of relevant material. Anything that I thought was commentary I nixed. Anything I thought was a rules changed I nixed. Anything not pertaining to the core book I nixed. Yes we could send an errata wish list for all of the Ar product published but the discussion was concerning the core book. So I've narrowed it. I sort of feel that the entire community may gang up me, but here's my abbreviated take on things. After discussion, I'll clean up the document once again and maybe submit this to Atlas?
No, the book is clear here. Laboratory Activities are everything listed in that chapter. So a lab total isn't necessary. No change.
I can feel the comments coming already. Gulp!
Agreed. However I think a more simple change is to retitle this part "Vis Limit". The section remains as written.
The business concerning Three times your magic theory is a rules change, not errata. It goes beyond this discussion imo.
The book states 'until physically broken.' That's pretty clear to me. No change?
Ok, if the intent is for a familiar to not count towards the number of assistants in a lab, then I agree "A familiar doesn't count towards the limit on the possible number of lab assistants." Is clearer than the last sentence in that section.
While I agree, I feel this is simply way beyond an errata. Skip?
I'm really confused here. The example reads good to me. Where is the simple die of warp? I am a little dizzy from all this reading, but I just keep missing this. Need clarification please.
Yes it is a lab activity. As explained above, everything in that section is. A lab total is not necessary for something to be a lab activity. It also cleary explains in "Fixing" that it takes a season to do, so it can't be a multiple activity. No change?
I sympathize, but I feel any sort of detail here becomes a rules change. As it is, it is open for a troupe to define. No change?
Boy am I jerk. It means 'at the time of casting'. I feel the description as a whole, is self explanitory. All targets inside the circle, at the time of casting are affected.
Not core book. Skipping.
This was the first mistake I found in that book. However, I would prefer if this isn't changed
Seperate errata, not core book issues. Skip.
It would seem this is resolved, but a simple sentence to aid this in the book would help put this issue to rest.
Yes, correct/clarify these.
I think everything else was commentary. This is not the the mail I'll present, but a streamlined list of CORE BOOK only material is what I'd like us, the fans to submit. I'm trying real hard to be the messenger on this one, so please don't kill me.