Topic: Guild Companion June 2011 (Issue 148)

[yammahoper]

Jesus saves...and takes half damage.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

The "Words to the Wise" article says that the weapons article was damaged when they received it and something about not being able to figure out the numbers. To me, the sensible thing would have been to contact the author and get the numbers (and to not publish what amounts to a broken article).

In a perfect world, that would have been the sensible thing to do.  However, this being a far cry from a perfect world, that course of action was not feasible.  Corrections will be posted as soon as they become available.

Actually, in a perfect world, the article would not have come in broken in the first place.   

By publishing the article as it was (i.e . incomplete), you make it appear that having a second article to publish was more important to you than the article being complete.

Considering that there have been a couple of single article issues of the guild in the past (i.e. March 2010, and Sept. 2010 -- and Nov 2010 had no articles, just the Editorial), I personally found the choice of publishing an incomplete/broken article to be a very odd choice.

[Kristen Mork]

By publishing the article as it was (i.e . incomplete), you make it appear that having a second article to publish was more important to you than the article being complete.

Clearly that's one interpretation.  Another is that we didn't want to disrupt the continuity of the series.  It really was not our intention to offend your sensibilities.

[Grinnen Baeritt]

I liked the article about the various historical weapons.. but the inclusion of hand axes in the 1-HC weapon category is beyond me.. unless I'm missing something.

edit: Perhaps they should read as 1HH (One Handed Hafted) instead?. Which would make more sence now that I gone back and re-read the previous article.. 

Upon reflection as much as I like the article (so far) I can't imagine changing to it. It would however be nice to have seen a condensed supplement printed dedicated to all the various historical weapons.

[Kristen Mork]

Are you suggesting a compilation of all of the weapon tables from Art of Fighting?  That sounds straightforward once all of the weapon sections have been published.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

By publishing the article as it was (i.e . incomplete), you make it appear that having a second article to publish was more important to you than the article being complete.

Clearly that's one interpretation.  Another is that we didn't want to disrupt the continuity of the series.  It really was not our intention to offend your sensibilities.

It's likely to be the common interpretation since nothing was said about "not wanting to disrupt continuity of the series" when you talked about the article in the editorial - only that you received the article broken, and decided to publish it that way.

Nor did you even mention in the editorial that you would be updating it later. In fact, the only thing you said (after saying it was broken and that you couldn't figure it out) was:

So, we leave it to you, dear reader, to fill in the blanks.

What may appear to be obvious to you, most certainly won't be obvious to your average reader, especially if you are not explicitly clear in describing your motivations for your average reader.

And don't worry, you didn't offend my sensibilities. 

[Grinnen Baeritt]

Are you suggesting a compilation of all of the weapon tables from Art of Fighting?  That sounds straightforward once all of the weapon sections have been published.

Yes. Though I would want to see illustrations and time-line relative information included, so more of a historical reference as well as just a complied list. I think Palldium did something similar a couple of decades ago. This way, commercially it would have more use to users of other systems. Not that I would advocate playing anything else 

[rdanhenry]

The "Mystical Archer" list "Mystical Arrows":

Level 4, Arrow Ablaze, reads "being to burn" where it should have "begin to burn".

Level 15, Mystical Shot III, states that 'the critical strike will be treated as "Holy"'. Should this be only for attacks on (Super) Large creatures or is the attack actually holy and able to inflict extra damage on demons and undead in general. This seems unlikely given that the Mystical Archer uses Essence magic rather than Channeling, but it is what the description suggests.

Level 20, Mystical Shot IV, similar to Mystical Shot III, is this intended for use only against LA/SL targets or does it allow additional Slaying crits against anyone?

[Ecthelion]

The "Mystical Archer" list "Mystical Arrows":

Level 4, Arrow Ablaze, reads "being to burn" where it should have "begin to burn".

Thanks for the correction.

Level 15, Mystical Shot III, states that 'the critical strike will be treated as "Holy"'. Should this be only for attacks on (Super) Large creatures or is the attack actually holy and able to inflict extra damage on demons and undead in general. This seems unlikely given that the Mystical Archer uses Essence magic rather than Channeling, but it is what the description suggests.

It should be Holy against LA/SL targets.

Level 20, Mystical Shot IV, similar to Mystical Shot III, is this intended for use only against LA/SL targets or does it allow additional Slaying crits against anyone?

It should be Slaying against LA/SL targets.

[markc]

 I was wondering if Edits posted here or on TGC website are added to the documents on the website?
Thanks
MDC

[GrumpyOldFart]

I was wondering if Edits posted here or on TGC website are added to the documents on the website?
Thanks
MDC

I have no idea of the hassles it would involve, but in many ways I think it would be of value for contributing authors to have some ability to edit their work even after publication. Rather like a blog, I suppose. That way, those who solicit (and get) feedback on their work from places such as this can reflect the presence of that feedback without having to take up the editor's time with it, or require readers to chase links to comments and/or updates elsewhere.

[Mercenary30]

For my last submission, I made the corrections to the original document and resent it in to the editors.  They posted the edited copy.

[GrumpyOldFart]

Well keep in mind, I have no foggiest notion how busy an editor's job does or does not keep him. I'm just thinking of the editor as a communications bottleneck between "Oh BTW, in _______ article, _____ is misspelled/missing/inaccurate/whatever" on a forum somewhere and the correction showing up in the article. To be sure, that bottleneck is quite deliberate, it's there for a very good reason, otherwise editors wouldn't exist. The point I was trying to make was that internet communications should make it much easier to adjust that bottleneck so the editor has the time and resources to do his job with the bare minimum of data slowdown, because things like minor corrections after online publication shouldn't necessarily require him.

Then again, approaching the subject as I am from a position of near complete ignorance, it's likely enough that all the solutions I could imagine were implemented back in the 90's.