> I would have thought it obvious that the intent of the phrase involved
> opposition of initiates and devotees.
I think in a discussion that's supposedly trying to remove rules ambiguity and clarify fuzzy terminology, adding some more of each hardly helps. (Especially if you're trying to construct a broader version of this distinction that applies to other systems too -- I think that's more cross-talk than I personally need in this context.)
> But I guess that this cuts no ice with your Argumentative 15W3 ... ;-)
Oh, please, give it a rest. Unless you'd care for me to speculatively rate your Veer From The Point, Bluster When Contradicted, Obfuscate With Pseudo-Erudition, etc. If you'd been the least bit clear, concise and/or consistent in this thread we'd have about a tenth of the volume of text I feel compelled (to cite the DD defence) to pedant to death.
> > > It's pretty clear on p. 118 that Affinity use by Initiates can only
> > > augment other abilities known by the Initiate.A similar stricture
> > > applies to CM.
> >
> > I think it's pretty clear they are _not_ similar.
>
> Stricture is a singular, not a plural.
> You appear to have misread the sentence.
>
> Obviously, a single similarity between the Affinity rules and the CM rules
> doesn't imply that CM and Theism are generally similar.
The appearance is (at best) superficial; I was not objecting that CM and theism are dissimilar, but that the above paraphrased 'stricture', and the 'stricture' applying to CM referred to[*] are not in fact similar at all. That you've deleted an entire paraphrase elaborating on the details of this, to construe the opening sentence as a 'misreading' along such lines is either amazingly careless in _your_ reading, or is frankly disingenuous. (Though an admission of either would certainly astonish.)
[*] Hence the pluralisation; I believe that Russell proves that 1+1=2, after a few hundred pages, not that I've read any of 'em myself.
> The point _isn't_ whether or not the magic can be used directly, it's
> whether or not initiates use Feats or Affinities.
No Julian, the former is entirely the point, your subsequent digression notwithstanding:
| To: HeroQuest-rules_at_yahoogroups.com | From: Julian Lord <jlord_at_...> | Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 23:24:40 +0100 | Subject: Re: Help with Feats please
| David :
| > I think the terminology "improvise feats" used on p.118 is a little | > confusing -- it might have been clearer had it been "initiates can | > use any named feat in the affinity as an active ability with a -10 | > improvisational modifier (-5 if he has concentrated his magic use), | > but he cannot learn these feats as abilities unless he becomes a | > devotee."
| But that isn't true. HQ makes it pretty clear that only concetrated | magic users can use magic directly (magic items excepted).
Since clarified to mean "devotees", but not actually accepted to be incorrect, though I'd think you're at least no longer arguing for "pretty clear".
> Answer : Affinities. Because the Feats aren't on the character
> sheet, the player will not be able to use them, but will instead
> say "I use my Wind Affinity to carry my shout across the valley."
> et cetera ...
But this is arguing from what the rules _ought_ to say (and I posted to that effect myself some time ago), rather than what they _do_ say (multitudinously or otherwise). And in any case, if we suppose that the rule were 'improvise any feat you like', rather than those listed, you could still have the same terminological issue.
> Obviously, this piece of copy missed a few rounds of re-reading.
> Blatant giveaway, it says that an affinity is a "broad ... ability",
> although broad abilities are no longer part of the game.
That may or may not be the case; there are remaining references to 'broadly defined abilities', and indeed the sentence makes perfect sense in the context of the normal, non-game-mechanical reading of the word. Even if this is indeed a relic from drafts of ye olde floated idea of 3HP-a-pop 'broads', that this invalidates the other paragraph of that section is rather guilt by association.
> > You may not use the
> > affinity 'directly', but you may use feats, based on same (he said,
> > carefully avoiding the I-word, since that was what was originally at
> > issue), 'directly', where by 'directly' we mean "not just as an
> > augment", to wit, what HQ is calling 'active'.
>
> HQ p. 120 "Unlike initiates, devotees can actively use feats. ... feats learned
> as part of an affinity are not distinct abilities"
>
> Er, Alex, sorry, but you've completely misinterpreted my objection here :
> the text is as clear as mud because it contradicts itself, and also involves
> over-use of certain words thereby creating an aura of confusion around
> the concepts involved.
Well, the _quoted_ text does not in fact contradict _itself_, so say rather that you've mis-stated your objection (about twice, in fact), if this is what you were originally getting at (or wasn't, but you'd rather now that it had been). Is it badly phrased? I think so, in particular as regards 'improvisation' -- but, this is where we came in.
> > It may not be how you'd
> > have chosen to put it (nor me -- nor I think, even what I'd have chosen
> > to put...), but its intended practical effect seems pretty easy to
> > discern.
>
> If that were true, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
That's something of a 'if I can pry it loose, it wasn't nailed down' objection, especially since the discussion didn't even start with you taking this position (at least in any ways that seems determinable, even in hindsight).
> Given that p. 118 and p. 120 contradict each other, and that one of the two
> basic statements is true and the other isn't, one has to do some work to
> understand which !
It was "as clear as mud" that p120 was the source you were basing your comments on (never mind that you were being specifically asked). I think the earlier discussion on the first phrase, to the effect of "for the sake of sanity, read that as 'learn' feats" would pretty much have covered that. And I don't see how the 'not distinct abilities' implies anything pertinent at all. 'Distinct', surely, as "from each other" (and/or from the affinity).
> Balderdash.
>
>
> <sigh!>
Gee thanks, you've really cleared that up in my mind.
Is (at least) one of p118 and p120 FAQ fodder? Certainly. Which? Beats me; certainly p120 looks the more off-hand and minimal reference to me, so it'd be my candidate, but then, I thought how to fix the Puma Person Talent Saga issue was staightforward, too... :/
Powered by hypermail