Possible serious need for errata?

I have been reading through the Mercere chapter of HoH:TL and have come across what I believe is a serious error in the text.

On page 85 under the Merchants and Bankers subsection the paragraph on vis exchange reads:

Then immediately following this paragraph is a chart which appears to ignore altogether the previously established rule.

As you can see, according to the first line of the table the suggestion is that one pawn of vis tenta (technique vis) is valued at a 1:1 rate with vis forma (form vis) in complete contradiction to the highlighted statement in the preceding paragraph. What's more the last entry in the above table claims a 4:1 rate between vis forma and vis tenta.

For there to be no discrepency between the rule and the example, should the table not read:

or else should the statement in the preceding paragraph be edited to simply point to the table as the standard rate of exchange?

You're missing the 2:1 buyer:seller ratio listed in the paragraph. "Generally, they trade one unit of vis for two." ... then goes on to define a unit as one form or half a technique vis.

Buyer pays 1 technique vis for one form vis.
Buyer pays 2 form vis for one form vis.
Buyer pays 2 technique vis for one technique vis.
Buyer pays 4 form vis for one technique vis.

WolfOfCampscapel beat me to it

You were reading the conversion the wrong way around.

The table as listed takes into account the exchange 2 for 1 process already

To gain 1 pawn of Corpus vis, you need to pay either
2 pawns of v.f.
OR 1 pawn of v.t. (as 1 v.t. = 2 v.f.)

hence:
1p (v.t.) = 1p (v.f.) 1 Muto for 1 Corpus
2p (v.f.) = 1p (v.f.) 2 Aquam for 1 Ignem

To gain 1 pawn of Creo vis, you need to pay either
4 pawns of v.f.
OR 2 pawns of v.t. (as 1 v.t. = 2 v.f.)

hence:
2p (v.t.) = 1p (v.t.) 2 Intellego for 1 Creo
4p (v.f.) = 1p (v.t.) 4 Vim for 1 Rego

Since the second post delineates the argument in a similar manner as I have I shall respond to that (no offence intended) to answer both posts above...

I don't think so...

This is NOT what the highlighted statement in the first paragraph says. It says 1 v.t.=2 v.f. NOT 2v.f.=1 v.f. Thus there is no clear comparison as you both have suggested. if 1 v.t. = 2 v.f. then the buyer of Corpus vis should get 2 Corpus for 1 Muto, not 1:1, else the initial rule is false.

As the express wording of the initial statement reads, again I see a glaring fault in the example. To gain one pawn of Creo vis with v.f. it should require only two pawns (as it says 1v.t. = 2v.f.) not 4v.f..

I can see the argument you are making, however, nowhere does it state as rule (aside from what I consider to be a faulty example chart) that it takes 2 v.t. to purchase 1 v.t.. Thus the 4:1 ratio is an exhorbitant stretch IMO. Either vis is traded at 1 v.t. (i.e. 1 Muto) for 2 v.f. or it is not, begging the question as to what consistent scale can magi rely on if all transactions are subject to shifting ratios?

I am surprised I seem to be the only one who sees this discrepency.

I dont remember if its properly stated in the text mentioned, but youÂ´re failing to see or remember that Corpus have always been valued higher than the other forms, and Vim always lower.

For the obvious reasons that Vim vis is easy to come by and Corpus vis is always in demand.

If the rules forgets to state that anywhere, thats what needs errata, not the trading rates.

You are thinking of it as a non-profit exchange. In the redcap case... think of it as a transaction at profit instead. The seller needs to end up with more vis than he started with.

That's why my emphasis is on Generally, they trade one unit of vis for two. . Where vis tenta counts as two units per pawn.

2 form for 1 form is clearly reasonable.
2 technique for 1 technique is clearly also reasonable.

then, when 1 technique is worth 2 form ... 2*2 form equals 2 technique.

2*2=4 form for 1 technique is just as reasonable.

I wasnt thinking of it as a non-profit arrangement, but I see where you get that impression. Certainly I begin to see your point about 2v.t. for 1v.t. and 2 v.f. for 1 v.f. that is clearly a sound profit-making arrangement for the Redcaps.

This also does justify the last line of the example chart (4:1), but still does not answer the first line of the chart which claims 1 Muto is worth 1 Corpus. 1 v.t.=2 v.f. thus that line should be errata'd to maintain consistency. Even if Corpus is amongst the most prized of the form vis, it is still a v.f. and thus not as precious as any 1 v.t., IMO.

You give 1 Muto, you get 1 Corpus.
You give 4 Corpus, you get 1 Muto.

Looks OK to me. Since technique pawns are twice as valuable as form pawns and the Redcaps charge two-for-one, you end up with a one-for-one ratio one way (Technique->Form) and four-for-one the other (Form->Technique).

You have simply restated the same argument as has been offered so far, Fruny. Again I have no trouble seeing the Redcap charging 4 v.f. (Form) for 1 v.t (Technique) since they would, as mentioned above, charge 2 v.t. for 1. v.t.. However, the first line of your example maintains what I consider to be the inconsistency.

1 Muto (v.t.) should buy 2 Corpus, IF the standard is 1v.t.= 2v.f. No way can a 1:1 v.t for v.f. exchange be deemed anything other than price gouging (a practice the Mercere chapter is explicit in describing as NOT in the interest of House Mercere) since the Redcap could just turn around and charge 4 v.f. for the 1 Muto vis elsewhere.

To be consistent, it should be 1 Muto (or any Technique)=2 Corpus (or any Form). This still makes it possible for the diehard profiteer to turn around and double his v.f. procurement for that 1 Muto elsewhere at the 4v.f.-->1v.t. rate.

One Muto is worth two Corpus but House Mercere charges two-for-one on all trades, so your one pawn of Muto only buys you one pawn of Corpus.

You indeed get only half value for your vis through House Mercere.

The rates given are all merely the expression of the fact that 1 v.t. is worth 2 v.f. and that House Mercere gives you half value, two-for-one. They are perfectly consistent in that respect.