Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Zironic]

You cannot tell the gender of an deceased person from the skeleton   You can tell sex.  A female pelvis has a rounded pubic arch, while the male pubic arch is a sharp angle--that's the easiest marker.  In addition, in the male, the ischial spines are curved more inward, while female ischial spines are spaced wider.

On gender, my profs always told me that was all psychology or sociology.  In biology, we have sex.

The concept of gender in psychology most stems from trying to explain people who feel they are not of the right sex on the outside. For most realistic applications: Gender = Sex.

Also, Is anyone else getting excited about the possibilities of having an item pass through generations, starting as a normal sword and eventually, through generations of use and attachment, becoming a legendary weapon?

Do multiple attachments stack? For example: A legendary swordsman's sword is found and used by another swordsman for years and he becomes attached, Does it become even more legendary? Does the sword become easier to attach to?

Because it'd be cool after generations of use, that you find a sword in adventuring that your character cannot resist picking up and wielding. Now imagine if that weapon is a XXcopper swordXX barely holding together.

[Footkerchief]

. There are a few side effects I didn't get a chance to handle -- a named item cannot be truly destroyed for instance (it becomes lost, as with a created artifact, and can reappear if you visit the site where it was lost unless in the wilderness).

Does this happen even if you atom-smash the artifact?

You can test that yourself in the current version, you know.  You'll probably have to abandon the fortress and return with an adventurer.  Be aware that the artifact may be hard to find.

Do multiple attachments stack? For example: A legendary swordsman's sword is found and used by another swordsman for years and he becomes attached, Does it become even more legendary? Does the sword become easier to attach to?

I really doubt it.  Toady mentioned exactly two factors that make attachment more likely: usage of the item, and personal preference for items of that type.  Preexisting legendary status would be a pretty dubious factor anyway -- should a dwarf have any special predilection for a weapon made famous by a goblin wielder?

[smjjames]

If you wrestle something to death (or kick), do your graspers record the kill? and upon death or severing..

This is an exceptional engraving of Bloodfist, the Iron Doom of Skulls and a dwarf. The dwarf is attached to Bloodfist. Bloodfist is striking a menacing pose.

Lol!

Anyways, does anybody else think that having all ammunition be in the legends is too much? I mean, given the fact that there would be thousands upon thousands of bolts made at a fortress in a single year, many times more in a forts lifetime. A good percentage of those would get used up in practice, nearly all of whats left will be in the body of some goblin infantry, a handful (that survive) would find themselves in a named critter or a siege leader.

Or am I misreading that and the ammo won't actually get  into the legends, but the weapon that fired the bolt will?

I like the idea of having the legendary weapons and stuff. I mean, there are numerous cases of warriors in fiction having weapons which have names. Theres Excalibur (it was an artifact though), Conans sword (not sure if the sword itself had a name, but its definetly well known), various westerns (the gun is usually called betsy or something  ), and um, can't think of any other examples atm.

@Zironic: Well, if the previous owner is dead, he/she is no longer attacthed are they?

Having a weapon show up for generation after generation has plenty of precedents, Samurai swords bieng one.

[shevek]

Getting so close! I can hardly stand the anticipation-salivation at the thought of the new release.

[Footkerchief]

Anyways, does anybody else think that having all ammunition be in the legends is too much? I mean, given the fact that there would be thousands upon thousands of bolts made at a fortress in a single year, many times more in a forts lifetime. A good percentage of those would get used up in practice, nearly all of whats left will be in the body of some goblin infantry, a handful (that survive) would find themselves in a named critter or a siege leader.

It's not all ammunition, just the ones that finish off a named creature.  One weapon record per dead person will never be a problem in and of itself.

[TKTom]

  Preexisting legendary status would be a pretty dubious factor anyway -- should a dwarf have any special predilection for a weapon made famous by a goblin wielder?

 Well, maybe. It's quite a good gesture of defiance to not only take an enemy's weapon, but to turn it against them also. Also, I think of dwarfs being fairly pragmatic and if they found a weapon that was of high quality and appropriate to use then they would use it. I suppose not everyone would agree with that.

 Why does the quality of an item not affect the chance for attachment?

[Sean Mirrsen]

Though it's a pity there was no time for the worldgen appearance of these weapons, it sure is great to have named items around the fortress. With ranged weapons and ammo, if I understood it right, the weapon will get a name if the user kills a lot of enemies with it (and becomes attached to it), but the arrows/bolts will have significantly less chance of getting high kills, and will get into the Legends only if they manage to off a high-standing figure. Say, you have a dragon attacking your fortress, one that levelled half the country during worldgen and has a thousand kills to his name. If Urist McBard manages to hit a weak spot and kill the thing with his crossbow, the bolt will get a mention as well as the dwarf and the crossbow.

[smjjames]

I guess in the same vein as the bullet or gun that killed Kennedy, the one that killed Lincolin, the one that killed the Red Baron (German ace pilot of WWI). It would seem overboard if the ammunition was given an actual name, but given how precious steel is in DF (and expensive to make), it makes sense.

[Footkerchief]

  Preexisting legendary status would be a pretty dubious factor anyway -- should a dwarf have any special predilection for a weapon made famous by a goblin wielder?

 Well, maybe. It's quite a good gesture of defiance to not only take an enemy's weapon, but to turn it against them also. Also, I think of dwarfs being fairly pragmatic and if they found a weapon that was of high quality and appropriate to use then they would use it. I suppose not everyone would agree with that.

Yeah, the answer is definitely "it depends," not an unconditional yes or no.  Which is why it would be a serious time sink to implement right now, since the usual slew of personal/cultural values has to be taken into account.

I guess in the same vein as the bullet or gun that killed Kennedy, the one that killed Lincolin, the one that killed the Red Baron (German ace pilot of WWI). It would seem overboard if the ammunition was given an actual name, but given how precious steel is in DF (and expensive to make), it makes sense.

It is a little borderline, I agree -- there's much less precedent for named ammunition, I guess because even the high-quality stuff is generally thought of as inherently disposable.

[TKTom]

I guess in the same vein as the bullet or gun that killed Kennedy, the one that killed Lincolin, the one that killed the Red Baron (German ace pilot of WWI). It would seem overboard if the ammunition was given an actual name, but given how precious steel is in DF (and expensive to make), it makes sense.

 Are the dwarfs even going to recover the bolt and then have a preference for using it? Their named status won't mean that the bolt will survive contact with armour and the like.

 Are we sure that the legends mention of ammunition is not simply a record of the number of missiles it took to kill a creature?

[Aqizzar]

Each individual item also tracks how many creatures it has killed and where (including non-weapon objects like tantrum-thrown furniture from a stockpile)...

The only thing that makes this sad is that the new material system will (probably) make it impossible to beat a giant to death with your pants anymore.  I'd so love to see the listing for my artifact Titan-slaying socks and coins.

[Zironic]

Lincoln Vag£sh, Lincoln Killer
This is a dragon bone arrow of masterful quality. It was used to slay Abraham McLincoln.

[TKTom]

Each individual item also tracks how many creatures it has killed and where (including non-weapon objects like tantrum-thrown furniture from a stockpile)...

The only thing that makes this sad is that the new material system will (probably) make it impossible to beat a giant to death with your pants anymore.  I'd so love to see the listing for my artifact Titan-slaying socks and coins.

 Maybe some day soon we will be able to choke them with objects like that. Fairly stylish.

[smjjames]

I guess in the same vein as the bullet or gun that killed Kennedy, the one that killed Lincolin, the one that killed the Red Baron (German ace pilot of WWI). It would seem overboard if the ammunition was given an actual name, but given how precious steel is in DF (and expensive to make), it makes sense.

 Are the dwarfs even going to recover the bolt and then have a preference for using it? Their named status won't mean that the bolt will survive contact with armour and the like.

 Are we sure that the legends mention of ammunition is not simply a record of the number of missiles it took to kill a creature?

Yea, and then theres the problem of tracking it when it gets stuck in a critter that makes it off the map, even then bolts almost always get destroyed.

[Quatch]

Named arrow example: the black arrow used to kill Smaug.