I have just bought the BotE and I am a bit confused with "Table 3.6 Damage, in lots" on page 45
As I understand each estate is divided in 10 equal lots (each being 10%)

On the table it says that a estate is plundered it take 11 lots of damage (110%), 7 of the temporary and 4 permanent.
In the case of ravaged it would take 17 lots of damage (170%).

Am I reading this correctly as in both cases the estates are losing over 100% of their incomes?

That's how I read it, yes. The raiders not only destroyed part of the crops and such but destroyed Sonera of the profit making structures too like stole some of the horse herd etc.ry

I think the titles on the table are not the best. I suspect that the 'temporary lots' are really the total lots lost that year. Of those some number are permanent. The rest are temporary.

So on a raid, there are 3 lots of damage. The raider gets £1.5 the rest is destruction, but there is no permanent damage. The manor recovers eventually.

If ravaged, the attacker does 9 lots of damage, collects £4.5. However, of those 9 lots, 8 are permanent damage and will not recover without other actions. The manor will recover 1 lot and be worth £2.

NT

I suspect that the 'temporary lots' are really the total lots lost that year. Of those some number are permanent. The rest are temporary.

That is how I was reading it. It just didn't make sense to me any other way. :-\

Thank you Eothar, that makes sense.

No problem. It's just my interpretation, but I think it makes sense.

NT

I have just bought the BotE and I am a bit confused with "Table 3.6 Damage, in lots" on page 45
As I understand each estate is divided in 10 equal lots (each being 10%)

On the table it says that a estate is plundered it take 11 lots of damage (110%), 7 of the temporary and 4 permanent.
In the case of ravaged it would take 17 lots of damage (170%).

Am I reading this correctly as in both cases the estates are losing over 100% of their incomes?

No
As said above, perhaps the labels are fuzzy
From a Plunder the estate loses income for 7 lots that year, 4 of which are permanent losses
and so on

If anyone wants to suggest better labels, we can update the PDF...


Thanks,


T.

The "Temporary Loss" column could be changed to "Total Loss": in this way, it becomes clear that the "Permanent Loss" is PART OF THE TOTAL. However, the "Temporary Loss" remains to be calculated by the GM.
Even better, change the name as above AND add a "Temporary Loss" column, where "Temporary Loss" is the difference between Total and Permanent:

Event Total Loss Temporary Loss Permanent Loss
Raid 3 3 0
Pillage 5 3 2
Pluder 7 3 4

Hoping that I got the numbers right...

Roberto

If adding the 3rd column is an option, I am a big fan of Roberto's suggestion. You could probably even change the column names to "Temporary", "Permanent", and "Total" since the "in lots" is already explained in the title of the table "Damage, In Lots." I think this should free up enough space to fit the 3rd column.