6th Ed contradiction in adjustment powers

[dsatow]

On page 135 of 6e1,

Adjustment Powers applied against Defense

Powers and some related defensive abilities

(including the Characteristics CON, DCV, DMCV,

PD, ED, REC, END, BODY, and STUN) have only

half effect. See 6E1 141 for more information.

But on page 232 the example is wrong both in how the math adds up for Brother Willem and according to pg 135.

Example:

Brother Herbert has a Healing BODY

2d6 spell (maximum effect

12 points, or 6

BODY:confused:

). Brother Willem has a Healing BODY

2d6 spell, Decreased Re-Use Duration (1 Turn)

(again, maximum effect

12 points, or 12 BODY:eek:

).

Their friend Artorius the Bold has been badly

injured in battle, suffering 8 BODY worth of

wounds. In Turn 1, they both decide to try to

Heal Artorius. Herbert acts in Segment 3 and

rolls 4 (thus Healing 4 BODY). On his Phase

in Segment 4, Willem tries to Heal Artorius as

well. Willem has to roll more than 4 on his 2d6

to Heal Artorius further, and can only Heal

him to the extent his roll exceeds 4. However,

whereas Herbert has to wait 1 Day before he

can apply Healing without being subject to the

maximum effect rules, Willem only has to wait

until Segment 4 of Turn 2 (one Turn later). At

that time he can apply his Healing power anew,

regardless of what he, Herbert, or any other

healers did in the intervening time.

So the questions are

1) Is healing exempt from the statement on page 135?

2) Is Brother Willem's or Brother Herbert's math correct?

3) Why isn't there a woodchuck write up?

[Steve Long]

Re: 6th Ed contradiction in adjustment powers

 

The Healing example is simply in error.