mahkra said:
"Gain one attack" is simpler and less misleading than "make one additional attack".
Except for the part where "gaining" an attack doesn't actually mean anything in Descent. They have "movement points" as a term that means you have a right to move but haven't exercised it yet, but they have no equivalent language for attacks, so they can't say that without inventing new game terms.
YellowPebble said:
One can (Corbon seemed to allude to this) use "additional" to add something similar to a group of broadly-similarly-categorised but not identical objects, but it would never, in normal speech, be used when referring to an empty category.
It is not an empty category. You have some (0-(2X+n)) MP, some (0-1) orders and some (0-2+) attacks. This is the group of 'broadly-similarly-categorised but not identical objects'. Even if you have 0 attacks, you still have some of the other objects (in the case of a Run, 2X+n MP). Therefore the use of additional is perfectly appropriate and not a 'restriction' limiting you to only using Koll's Mark when you are already attacking (in fact, when you have attacks 'left').
@Mahkra
Alright, I looked back over and I can see where we both went wrong and we are less far from each other than it appears.
1. Mikaeru said that for him the usage of 'additional' means that it
needs
to have another attack to make sense, and you said his usage of the word
was correct.
To me, that means you are agreeing (then) that, to use Antistone's term, there is an
entailment
.
2. At the same time you said that it
strongly implies
starting with 'something'
3. I happen to agree, but the something doesn't have to be the
same
thing. 2X+n MP fits the implication of having to have
something
. But because of your agreement with Mikaeru's statement of
need
(entailment), followed by your always using the same objects in examples, I took it that you were insisting that there needed to be existing attacks for Koll's Mark to work.
Since you are not, we are arguing over nothing, fun though it has been.
Regarding the complement/supplement thing, due to the common usage of complimentary as 'free', where I am from complementary is not usually used to mean "completing, as topping up". Complementary is usually used to mean "something extra that improves/perfects".
Supplementary is most commonly used to mean "something added to supply a deficiency" - like dietary supplements or bar snacks.
Here's a thought: couldn't you replace "additional" with "in addition to"? So, for instance, Mark of Koll could be read to say "Gain one Magic attack in addition to your stated action"?...
That would make it clearer. That's how One Fist's special ability is formulated, if I'm not mistaken.
The wording for the skill in question is vague. It says: during your turn you make make one additional Magic attack. It does not denote that a particular action must be taken during your turn to activate this skill(I.e. Battle, Run, Advance, Ready), which may mean that either you may activate it each time you pay the cost, regardless of the declared action, or you may trigger it only when you've already made one attack. I'd play by the former interpretation, since the skill doesn't indicate that a specific action needs to be declared. Regardless of how you rule, this skill feels ridiculously broken.
zealot12 said:
Regardless of how you rule, this skill feels ridiculously broken.
I don't think it's broken. It's a good skill to be sure, but it does cost two wounds and it does specify a Magic attack. Characters who specialize in Magic attacks usually have lower health and/or armor, making the cost that much more poignant.
YellowPebble said:
I'll come in on the side of those who think "additional" implies existing attacks.
+1
YellowPebble said:
Let me first state that I don't think the designers actually intended the ability not to be useable on a run action.
+1
YellowPebble said:
I do, however, think it's poorly worded.
+1
Antistone said:
There's an obvious reason why they might think that writing "additional" would be clearer (i.e. to distinguish a gain from a replacement), even if it's supposed to work on a Run action. Therefore, it doesn't necessarily imply anything else in this case , even if it does in other contexts.
Oh, and a +1
inle_badger said:
YellowPebble said:
I'll come in on the side of those who think "additional" implies existing attacks.
+1
YellowPebble said:
Let me first state that I don't think the designers actually intended the ability not to be useable on a run action.
+1
YellowPebble said:
I do, however, think it's poorly worded.
+1
+3 ^^,
Any mage with a descent speed , could clean up a donjon level on his first trun for 4 life ..., it worst case may cost one more power potion
:(
before we all fall in rage for a simply word... (and now i'm editing i'd notice we just do that
)
usualy in descent i see the following definition on cards, skill and other stuff
"add an additional X at hero's action"
so when i see "the hero recive additional X" i allways SUPPOSE it's mean "recive additional X MORE than he's action" . the X you recive it supplementary to your action.
when a hero choose Fight(attack twice) he can still recive ADDITIONAL movment using fatigue. he dont have any at the start of this turn, but recive additional X when he use the fatigue.
by the way starting a discussion about what dictionary say in this case is the best way to began a flame war to my advice.
hi,
I would say in both definition the skill is already very good, just i will assume, than it would be a decision for the party, while we don't have a FAQ nor a errata about it.
Br.