From 7fc0da3ecff34d252b48c446d8fe47455ed8184b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: slaguru666 <111923774+slaguru666@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2026 14:08:04 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] R-276 correction: check-lethality fights solo, and I read the wrong column Asked to re-record the lethality baseline against a lone redcap, I read the tool and found it already does: measure(party, [spec]), with a comment saying "Solo, because a creature is the unit under test". My claim that it fights packs came from memory of check-focus, whose redcap is n: 3. The lethality figure was also not hiding the power. Wipe rate moved 0.7% to 0.9% because one redcap cannot wipe four agents whatever it ignores -- that column is at its floor. Agents down moved 0.55 to 0.74 of 4, a 35% relative increase, which is the column I did not look at. No baseline re-recorded: it is already solo and was re-recorded in R-275. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 --- docs/REVIEW_LOG.md | 25 +++++++++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/REVIEW_LOG.md b/docs/REVIEW_LOG.md index ef336f5..943b5df 100644 --- a/docs/REVIEW_LOG.md +++ b/docs/REVIEW_LOG.md @@ -6334,12 +6334,25 @@ round and spends four defences, so exemption from the stacking penalty is most o survival. Three redcaps against four agents are attacked roughly once each, never spend a second defence, and the power is worth a tenth of a point. -**Which is why check-lethality barely moved.** Its redcap figure went 0.7% to 0.9% wiped, -and I reported that in R-275 as "small, because these fights rarely spend a second -defence". That was the right explanation and I under-read it: the lethality baseline fights -redcaps in a pack, and **the pack is precisely the configuration in which this power is -worth nothing**. The guard suite is not wrong, it is measuring the case where the rule does -the least, so the number it reports is the floor rather than the effect. +**Which is why check-lethality barely moved.** ~~Its redcap figure went 0.7% to 0.9% +wiped... the lethality baseline fights redcaps in a pack, and the pack is precisely the +configuration in which this power is worth nothing.~~ + +> **CORRECTED, and the correction is worse than the claim.** `check-lethality` fights every +> creature **solo** — `measure(party, [spec])`, with a comment two lines up saying so: +> *"Solo, because a creature is the unit under test — counts are an encounter's business."* +> I asserted it fought packs from memory of a different guard. It is **check-focus** that +> records a pack size, and its redcap is `n: 3` — so the "measured where the power does +> nothing" point is true, and true of the other guard. +> +> And the lethality figure was never hiding anything. Wipe rate moved 0.7% to 0.9% because +> **one redcap cannot wipe four agents whatever it ignores** — that column is at its floor. +> The column that moved is *agents down*, **0.55 to 0.74 of 4**, which is a 35% relative +> increase and is not small at all. I read the small number, explained it, and did not look +> at the one next to it. +> +> Two statistics, two guards, and I had them crossed in both directions. Found by being +> asked to re-record a baseline that was already recorded the way I said it was not. **One thing I nearly presented as evidence and did not.** At seed 3 the party wins with the power on and is wiped with it off — the opposite of the power's direction. That is not a