This question should remain closed as a duplicate.
Question A: Can I recover a single arrow?
Question B: Is ammunition recoverable and reusable?
I voted to close this question as a duplicate of Is ammunition recoverable and reusable?. Let's check the duplicate criteria.
- It's the same question, or Question A is already covered obviously as a subset of Question B. "Obvious" here means I can tell at a glance that Question A would be covered by Question B.
Firing and attempting to recover one arrow is obviously covered as a subset of the more general question "Is ammunition recoverable and reusable?"
- Question B has an obvious answer to Question A. "Obvious" here means I get a straightforward answer without hard searching — a couple of sentences buried in the middle of a post, or an answer which only sort of implies an answer to Question A, doesn't count as obvious.
The highest scoring (and accepted) answer to Question B provides a direct answer to Question A, first by quoting and summarizing the relevant rules, then providing several examples of how those rules are applied in play, including providing the scenario of Question A as an example:
For example, if we fire 7 arrows during the fight, we can recover half of 7, which is 3.5, rounded down, which is 3 arrow recovered. If we only fire a single arrow, we can recover half of 1, which 0.5, rounded down, which is 0 arrows recovered.1
Additionally, the rest of the answers contain similar rulings based on the relevant rules and further guidance that is directly applicable to Question A.
- There isn't a strong, compelling reason to cover Question A alone, separately from Question B. (If the above bullet points are met, this rarely happens.)
There is not. It remained closed through five reopen reviews spanning two and a half years before it collected four reopen votes, which allowed me to reopen and switch the close reason over to duplicate. The question is a duplicate, and is adequately addressed by numerous good answers on the linked question.
1 A note for transparency: In September 2021 I revised the accepted answer to more thoroughly explain the relevant rules and cover a couple of examples, including the example that explicitly covers the scenario of Question A.