Crossword Help Forum
Forum Rules

Dylan, yes, it was possible to get * by logic without anything involving the encoding. The clue involving the sum of the digits narrowed it down to one possibility (the possibilities led me to contradictions e.g. causing the second digit of * to be negative or two-digits.

Tricky to answer Cruncher as that scenario doesn't really come about. But as in the preamble if * exceeds the number to be coded then just use normal substitution. My suggestion would just be to go for it - I'm a maths dunce too (failed Maths 'O' - and English!) but got there - just don't be put off if it starts off looking gibberish when you encode, the strings of words appear amid some unwanted letters - by the time you've coded the first dozen pairs you should see something meaningful in and amongst.

Make that a baker's dozen to be more precise!

I can usually do these numericals but I'm struggling to find an entry point to get started. I've now tried about 8 or 9 clues (some in combinations) but they all leave me with too many possibilities to start making consequent assumptions. Without giving spoilers, could anyone suggest which clue would be a good one to start with please?

Thanks.

Simond9x . Look at U, X, x in combination with s and S. That will give you a way in.

Thanks, Simon, from another Simon

Simond9x. Cheers, hope it helped

Thought I was getting on well. But my answer for E ends in 0, which is not allowed. So I must have got one of Q or u or B wrong. I can't see any obvious mistakes! Help

GeoffH. Without giving too much away, as a nudge, E is an odd number less than 500.

Not with my values of Q and u and B! That is meant to be a multiplication sign in the clue for B, isn't it?