Print

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

[Mephansteras]

Even named ammunition has precedence. Just look at the Black Arrow that killed Smaug in The Hobbit.

Ninja'd by Quatch.

But it might be nice if Named Ammo didn't have the same chance to break as normal ammo. Otherwise it won't stick around all that long.

[smjjames]

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

How many more examples do you guys know of? Named bullets wouldn't be feaseable because they usually become destroyed on impact and become buried into a corpse and can't just rip it out. Just one example really doesn't make a case for making named ammo.

Also, has the arrow/bolt stacking issue been fixed yet? It may have been alleviated by the extra control over weapons and making marksdwarves/hunters carry more than one stack of bolts or a certain number of bolts.

[Chthonic]

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

To be fair, this distinction is a relatively new invention, dating only to the 70s or so, and like many experiments in the retconning of meaning has failed to gain much foothold outside of academia.

"In biology, we have sex." is a joke.  The setup is technical, while the delivery has to be absolutely deadpan.  If the venerable old professor tells it with a wink and a devilish grin, he becomes guilty of sexual harassment, loses his tenure, and is also pretty creepy.

[Footkerchief]

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?

Okay, we're talking about three new properties of weapons here that are getting mixed up somewhat:
1. Individual attachment
2. Named status
3. Kill credit and mention in Legends

Note that named status requires individual attachment -- "dwarves that are attached to an object and have either used it in battle lots-and-lots or if it's a weapon and has killed a historical figure of era-level importance (civ leaders and mega beasts, pretty much) will name the object."  There hasn't been any mention of individual attachment for ammo, therefore, unless I'm reading this wrong, you won't see named ammo.  However, an unnamed weapon or piece of ammunition can still get kill credits and mentioned in Legends, presumably with a plain label like "a steel bolt" -- "Each individual item also tracks how many creatures it has killed and where."  Finally, individual attachment is not affected by either named status or an anonymous mention in Legends.

In short: 2 requires 1, otherwise they're all independent.

[Timst]

Will there be any indication to the player when a dwarf become attached to a weapon to the point of rejecting upgrades ?
Because I can totally imagine a clueless player wondering why does this dwarf doesn't drop his -copper bow- for this neat (and costly) *Steel crossbow* he just bought.

[TKTom]

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

How many more examples do you guys know of? Named bullets wouldn't be feaseable because they usually become destroyed on impact and become buried into a corpse and can't just rip it out. Just one example really doesn't make a case for making named ammo.

 I can vaguely think of a few others, but they are used as  competition arrows that are of superior quality (as is the Black Arrow, it's a Gondorian war arrow even if Bard doesn't know it*), and when they are used in combat they are destroyed in some manner. In DF terms it's not really feasable to name an arrow or bolt.

 Thus, I agree with:

Note that named status requires individual attachment -- "dwarves that are attached to an object and have either used it in battle lots-and-lots or if it's a weapon and has killed a historical figure of era-level importance (civ leaders and mega beasts, pretty much) will name the object."  There hasn't been any mention of individual attachment for ammo, therefore, unless I'm reading this wrong, you won't see named ammo.  However, an unnamed weapon or piece of ammunition can still get kill credits and mentioned in Legends, presumably with a plain label like "a steel bolt" -- "Each individual item also tracks how many creatures it has killed and where."  Finally, individual attachment is not affected by either named status or an anonymous mention in Legends.

 * Google search says maybe that's not accurate, could have sworn I read that somewhere.

[Footkerchief]

Also, has the arrow/bolt staking issue been fixed yet? It may have been alleviated by the extra control over weapons and making marksdwarves/hunters carry more than one stack of bolts or a certain number of bolts.

He's going to be finishing up archery training any day now, so we'll probably hear more about it soon:

So does this mean they'll carry any number of stacks in a quiver, or any number of bolts, or will they need two separate quivers or carry practise bolts in their hand or what?

I'm not 100% sure yet, as I've not finished archery training yet, but the theory is to collect sufficient bolts in a single quiver for whatever purpose they currently have for them.  Many of the obstacles I had getting them to do that before have gone away now.

[Sean Mirrsen]

There're very few examples of named ammunition because it is so unlikely to be recovered. In general, the larger the ammunition, the more likely it is to be named. When ammunition properties will be more of a factor in survivability, ballista bolts will gather quite a lot of kills to their name.

[Markham]

I take it Adventure Mode might rack up a couple named roaches, flies, rocks, coins, and globs of vomit?

[CobaltKobold]

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.

Marginalize not, please.

While there aren't (really) names for ammo, it is at least (in)famous that The Red Baron was taken down by one bullet.

Didn't Scaramanga* write the victim's name on each bullet for the Golden Gun? (Of Fleming's James Bond fame)

*_{may be wrong character}

[Neruz]

Named projectiles is quite common when you're dealing with arrows and stuff; for example an Elven Ranger might inscribe the name of the person he is hunting onto an arrow, and soforth.

Such names are usually given to the arrow before it is fired though; the arrow is created special or made special by the naming and often some other magic, rather than getting a name after it has struck an enemy down.


Sometimes, the arrow that X used to kill the troll (or whatever) is kept as a lucky charm though. That one crops up every now and then.

[PermanentInk]

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.

This is a good example of going out of your way to pick on word usage, when that usage is in fact 100% unambiguous and clear.  Sometimes it's useful and important to distinguish between gender and sex, but in this case there's no useful distinction because we're talking about decomposed mortal remains that have no mind with which to carry a gender identity.

Picking on language in online forums is a plague (and often insensitive to non-native speakers, etc.).  Please next time consider whether you're saying something that actually furthers the discussion, and if not then maybe just keep it to yourself (good advice in general; I wish people at work would do this more often in meetings).

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.

I was actually thinking of something more literally generational -- namely, passing down weapons as heirlooms from parent to child.  In such cases, it seems clear that the child should be more inclined to form an attachment to the heirloom than to some random object picked up off the floor.  Once this is recognized, I'm sure there are other contexts in which the history of an object prior to acquisition ought to figure in to attachment probability.

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?

That doesn't sound very workable.  How do you decide which missiles count?  If I hit you with an arrow and you survive another 10 years before another arrow kills you, does the first arrow count?

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.

Impossible why?  You should still be able to attempt it, at least.  It may be more difficult, but that's just Fun.

[Footkerchief]

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.

Impossible why?  You should still be able to attempt it, at least.  It may be more difficult, but that's just Fun.

Impossible as in very, very difficult and probably not going to happen.  I imagine it could still be achieved if you had ridiculously high strength, though.

[PermanentInk]

Impossible as in very, very difficult and probably not going to happen.  I imagine it could still be achieved if you had ridiculously high strength, though.

Right, or if your opponent was already incapacitated and you had all the time in the world to finish him off by beating him with a sock.  Reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VDvgL58h_Y

[CobaltKobold]

Impossible as in very, very difficult and probably not going to happen.  I imagine it could still be achieved if you had ridiculously high strength, though.

There's also surprise. Why, I think No Man might pull it off.