Messages for 19 December 2005

Subject	Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are wrong)
From	raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 01:55:20 +1300
Quoting Errol Cavit <ecavit@tollnz.co.nz>: > So, the cost to make a cold iron weaponsmithed weapon is unchanged: 80% of > the listed 'base cost' times (rank + 1 + DM increase). If a weapon is > silvered, gilded, or truesilvered, then add a cost calculated by multiplying > the weapon's 'base cost' by (10, 120, or 180), and applying the standard > 80% factor. > (actually 9, 119 or 179 to account for the 1x in the weaponsmith rank > applied calculation) > > A Rk10 (+2 DM) truesilvered Hand and a half then comes out at 13,056sp > > 80% x 85 x (10[rk] + 1 + 2[DM] + 179) = 13,056 > > A Rk0 silvered dagger (the original example) is 80 > > 80% x 10 x (0 + 1 + 0 + 9) = 80 > > The exact wording and formula presentation can be improved. > > > What says the list? > I'll only go ahead with overwhelming approval. Sounds good to me. Jim. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are wrong)
From	Cosmo
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 06:57:52 +1300
Agreed. It would seem weird that a even a very, very well-made non-magical sword should cost more than the most expensive spells in the game. And if anyone doesn't think they are paying enough, they can always have the Weapon/Goldsmith "bling" their purchases up a bit. ben Errol Cavit wrote: > Weaponsmith: > > Issue: The formula voted in for the cost to make silvered (and > gilded/true-silvered) weapons gives ridiculously high values where > weapons are 'metalled' AND weaponsmithed. > > This is because the 'metalling' cost multiplier (x10, x120, or x180) > is applied to the full weaponsmithed cost to make - itself up to 13 > times the cost of a Rk0 weapon. So a truesilvered Rk10 Hand and a half > with a +2 DM starts out at 68sp (85 list price at 80%). It is then > multiplied by 13 for the weaponsmithing (884sp), and multiplied again > by 180, to give a cost of 159,120sp. > > We didn't notice this until Struan brought it up last week because the > example in the Rulebook has a Rk0 weaponsmith skill applied to the weapon. > > I'm fairly sure we didn't intend to do this! > > Proposed solution: Clearly state the formula in words, get the OK from > the list to include it in the March 2006 Rulebook, and put a revised > formula in, along with a good example. > > > So, the cost to make a cold iron weaponsmithed weapon is unchanged: > 80% of the listed 'base cost' times (rank + 1 + DM increase). If a > weapon is silvered, gilded, or truesilvered, then add a cost > calculated by multiplying the weapon's 'base cost' by (10, 120, or > 180), and applying the standard 80% factor. > > (actually 9, 119 or 179 to account for the 1x in the weaponsmith rank > applied calculation) > > A Rk10 (+2 DM) truesilvered Hand and a half then comes out at 13,056sp > > 80% x 85 x (10[rk] + 1 + 2[DM] + 179) = 13,056 > > A Rk0 silvered dagger (the original example) is 80 > > 80% x 10 x (0 + 1 + 0 + 9) = 80 > > The exact wording and formula presentation can be improved. > > > What says the list? > I'll only go ahead with overwhelming approval. > > > Cheers > Errol > > PS Thanks to Struan for crunching the numbers > PPS Yes, I'm as tired of talking about this as most people > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of > > Struan Judd > > Sent: Tuesday, 13 December 2005 10:41 > > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > > Subject: [dq] The Weaponsmith changes are wrong > > > > > > Plus additional armourer changes are required. > > > > First the Armourer changes: > > There is no mention of of how Silvering and Truesilvering adjusts the > > cost to the Armourer of the Armour they are making (or repairing). > > > > I have a memory of this being discussed and resolved to be that the > > silvering and truesilvering costs are added to the final calculated > > cost, ie. the formula is: > > 80% x Base Cost × (Effective Rank + 1) + (True)Silvering cost (if > > any) silver pennies. > > > > Thus for consistency the Weaponsmith change should be to bring the > > text in line with the equation not the other way round. > > > > My main reason is the innate value of the weapon: > > Using the old formula a Rk 10 +2 Dmg Dagger would cost: > > Normal - 104 sp, Silvered - 204 sp, Gilded - 1,304 sp and Truesilvered > > - 1,904 sp > > and a Rk 10 +2 dmg Hand and a half Sword would cost: > > Normal - 884 sp, Silvered - 1,734 sp, Gilded - 11,084 and Truesilvered > > - 16,184 sp > > > > whereas with the proposed new calculation: > > a Rk 10 +2 Dmg Dagger would cost: > > Normal - 104 sp, Silvered - 1040 sp, Gilded - 12,480 sp and > > Truesilvered - 18,720 sp > > and a Rk 10 +2 dmg Hand and a half Sword would cost: > > Normal - 884 sp, Silvered - 8840 sp, Gilded - 106,080 and Truesilvered > > - 159,120 sp > > > > Just far too much. > > > > I repeat: > > > > The Weaponsmith change should be to bring the text in line with the > > equation not the other way round. > > > > TTFN, Struan > > > > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are wrong)
From	Mandos Mitchinson
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 07:37:30 +1300
> Agreed. Based on the fact that anything that Dylan, Jim and Ben all agree on must be right, I'm in too :-) Agreed! :0-) Mandos /s -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are wrong)
From	Clare Baldock
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 08:22:04 +1300
On 18/12/2005, at 23:24, Errol Cavit wrote: > What says the list? > I'll only go ahead with overwhelming approval. Definitely agree, cheers, clare -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are wrong)
From	Helen Saggers
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 08:44:34 +1300
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0042_01C60478.700043D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are wrong)rather than use 179 = or 9 or 119 in the formulas might not it be better to replace the 1 with = the whole 180 or which ever. So a cold iron weapon is 80% base cost x(10(rk)+1+2(dm)) And a true silvered one is 80%base cost x(10(rk) +180+ 2(dm)) Call the 1 10 120 or 180 metal type or some such where 1 is for cold = iron. Helen ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Errol Cavit=20 To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz=20 Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 11:24 PM Subject: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are wrong) Weaponsmith:=20 Issue: The formula voted in for the cost to make silvered (and = gilded/true-silvered) weapons gives ridiculously high values where = weapons are 'metalled' AND weaponsmithed. This is because the 'metalling' cost multiplier (x10, x120, or x180) = is applied to the full weaponsmithed cost to make - itself up to 13 = times the cost of a Rk0 weapon. So a truesilvered Rk10 Hand and a half = with a +2 DM starts out at 68sp (85 list price at 80%). It is then = multiplied by 13 for the weaponsmithing (884sp), and multiplied again by = 180, to give a cost of 159,120sp. We didn't notice this until Struan brought it up last week because the = example in the Rulebook has a Rk0 weaponsmith skill applied to the = weapon. I'm fairly sure we didn't intend to do this!=20 Proposed solution: Clearly state the formula in words, get the OK from = the list to include it in the March 2006 Rulebook, and put a revised = formula in, along with a good example. So, the cost to make a cold iron weaponsmithed weapon is unchanged: = 80% of the listed 'base cost' times (rank + 1 + DM increase). If a = weapon is silvered, gilded, or truesilvered, then add a cost calculated = by multiplying the weapon's 'base cost' by (10, 120, or 180), and = applying the standard 80% factor. (actually 9, 119 or 179 to account for the 1x in the weaponsmith rank = applied calculation)=20 A Rk10 (+2 DM) truesilvered Hand and a half then comes out at 13,056sp = 80% x 85 x (10[rk] + 1 + 2[DM] + 179) =3D 13,056=20 A Rk0 silvered dagger (the original example) is 80=20 80% x 10 x (0 + 1 + 0 + 9) =3D 80=20 The exact wording and formula presentation can be improved.=20 What says the list?=20 I'll only go ahead with overwhelming approval.=20 Cheers=20 Errol=20 PS Thanks to Struan for crunching the numbers=20 PPS Yes, I'm as tired of talking about this as most people=20 > -----Original Message-----=20 > From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf = Of=20 > Struan Judd=20 > Sent: Tuesday, 13 December 2005 10:41=20 > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz=20 > Subject: [dq] The Weaponsmith changes are wrong=20 >=20 >=20 > Plus additional armourer changes are required.=20 >=20 > First the Armourer changes:=20 > There is no mention of of how Silvering and Truesilvering adjusts = the=20 > cost to the Armourer of the Armour they are making (or repairing).=20 >=20 > I have a memory of this being discussed and resolved to be that the=20 > silvering and truesilvering costs are added to the final calculated=20 > cost, ie. the formula is:=20 > 80% x Base Cost =D7 (Effective Rank + 1) + (True)Silvering cost = (if=20 > any) silver pennies.=20 >=20 > Thus for consistency the Weaponsmith change should be to bring the=20 > text in line with the equation not the other way round.=20 >=20 > My main reason is the innate value of the weapon:=20 > Using the old formula a Rk 10 +2 Dmg Dagger would cost:=20 > Normal - 104 sp, Silvered - 204 sp, Gilded - 1,304 sp and = Truesilvered=20 > - 1,904 sp=20 > and a Rk 10 +2 dmg Hand and a half Sword would cost:=20 > Normal - 884 sp, Silvered - 1,734 sp, Gilded - 11,084 and = Truesilvered=20 > - 16,184 sp=20 >=20 > whereas with the proposed new calculation:=20 > a Rk 10 +2 Dmg Dagger would cost:=20 > Normal - 104 sp, Silvered - 1040 sp, Gilded - 12,480 sp and=20 > Truesilvered - 18,720 sp=20 > and a Rk 10 +2 dmg Hand and a half Sword would cost:=20 > Normal - 884 sp, Silvered - 8840 sp, Gilded - 106,080 and = Truesilvered=20 > - 159,120 sp=20 >=20 > Just far too much.=20 >=20 > I repeat:=20 >=20 > The Weaponsmith change should be to bring the text in line with the=20 > equation not the other way round.=20 >=20 > TTFN, Struan=20 >=20 >=20 > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --=20 >=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0042_01C60478.700043D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD><TITLE>RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are = wrong)</TITLE> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1528" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>rather than use 179 or 9 or 119 in the = formulas=20 might not it be better to replace the 1 with the whole 180 or which=20 ever.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>So a cold iron weapon is 80% base = cost=20 x(10(rk)+1+2(dm))</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>And a true silvered one is 80%base cost = x(10(rk)=20 +180+ 2(dm))</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Call the 1 10 120 or 180 metal type or = some=20 such where 1 is for cold iron.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Helen</FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20 style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; = BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV> <DIV=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: = black"><B>From:</B>=20 <A title=3Decavit@tollnz.co.nz = href=3D"mailto:ecavit@tollnz.co.nz">Errol Cavit</A>=20 </DIV> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=3Ddq@dq.sf.org.nz=20 href=3D"mailto:dq@dq.sf.org.nz">dq@dq.sf.org.nz</A> </DIV> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, December 18, 2005 = 11:24=20 PM</DIV> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was = The=20 Weaponsmith changes are wrong)</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <P><FONT size=3D2>Weaponsmith:</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=3D2>Issue: The formula voted in for the cost to make = silvered (and=20 gilded/true-silvered) weapons gives ridiculously high values where = weapons are=20 'metalled' AND weaponsmithed.</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=3D2>This is because the 'metalling' cost multiplier = (x10, x120, or=20 x180) is applied to the full weaponsmithed cost to make - itself up to = 13=20 times the cost of a Rk0 weapon. So a truesilvered Rk10 Hand and a half = with a=20 +2 DM starts out at 68sp (85 list price at 80%). It is then multiplied = by 13=20 for the weaponsmithing (884sp), and multiplied again by 180, to give a = cost of=20 159,120sp.</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=3D2>We didn't notice this until Struan brought it up = last week=20 because the example in the Rulebook has a Rk0 weaponsmith skill = applied to the=20 weapon.</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=3D2>I'm fairly sure we didn't intend to do this!</FONT> = </P> <P><FONT size=3D2>Proposed solution: Clearly state the formula in = words, get the=20 OK from the list to include it in the March 2006 Rulebook, and put a = revised=20 formula in, along with a good example.</FONT></P><BR> <P><FONT size=3D2>So, the cost to make a cold iron weaponsmithed = weapon is=20 unchanged: 80% of the listed 'base cost' times (rank + 1 + DM = increase). If a=20 weapon is silvered, gilded, or truesilvered, then add a cost = calculated by=20 multiplying the weapon's 'base cost' by (10, 120, or 180), and = applying the=20 standard 80% factor.</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=3D2>(actually 9, 119 or 179 to account for the 1x in = the=20 weaponsmith rank applied calculation)</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=3D2>A Rk10 (+2 DM) truesilvered Hand and a half then = comes out at=20 13,056sp</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=3D2>80% x 85 x (10[rk] + 1 + 2[DM] + 179) =3D = 13,056</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=3D2>A Rk0 silvered dagger (the original example) is = 80</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=3D2>80% x 10 x (0 + 1 + 0 + 9) =3D 80</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=3D2>The exact wording and formula presentation can be=20 improved.</FONT> </P><BR> <P><FONT size=3D2>What says the list?</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>I'll = only go ahead=20 with overwhelming approval.</FONT> </P><BR> <P><FONT size=3D2>Cheers</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>Errol</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=3D2>PS Thanks to Struan for crunching the numbers</FONT> = <BR><FONT=20 size=3D2>PPS Yes, I'm as tired of talking about this as most = people</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=3D2>> -----Original Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT = size=3D2>>=20 From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [<A=20 = href=3D"mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</A>]On= Behalf=20 Of</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> Struan Judd</FONT> <BR><FONT = size=3D2>> Sent:=20 Tuesday, 13 December 2005 10:41</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> To:=20 dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> Subject: [dq] The = Weaponsmith=20 changes are wrong</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> </FONT><BR><FONT = size=3D2>>=20 </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>> Plus additional armourer changes are=20 required.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> </FONT><BR><FONT = size=3D2>> First the=20 Armourer changes:</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> There is no mention = of of how=20 Silvering and Truesilvering adjusts the</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> = cost to=20 the Armourer of the Armour they are making (or repairing).</FONT> = <BR><FONT=20 size=3D2>> </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>> I have a memory of this = being=20 discussed and resolved to be that the</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> = silvering=20 and truesilvering costs are added to the final calculated</FONT> = <BR><FONT=20 size=3D2>> cost, ie. the formula is:</FONT> <BR><FONT = size=3D2>>  =20 80% x Base Cost =D7 (Effective Rank + 1) + (True)Silvering cost = (if</FONT>=20 <BR><FONT size=3D2>> any) silver pennies.</FONT> <BR><FONT = size=3D2>>=20 </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>> Thus for consistency the Weaponsmith = change=20 should be to bring the</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> text in line = with the=20 equation not the other way round.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>>=20 </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>> My main reason is the innate value of = the=20 weapon:</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> Using the old formula a Rk 10 = +2 Dmg=20 Dagger would cost:</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> Normal - 104 sp, = Silvered -=20 204 sp, Gilded - 1,304 sp and Truesilvered</FONT> <BR><FONT = size=3D2>> -=20 1,904 sp</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> and a Rk 10 +2 dmg Hand and a = half Sword=20 would cost:</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> Normal - 884 sp, Silvered - = 1,734 sp,=20 Gilded - 11,084 and Truesilvered</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> - = 16,184=20 sp</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>> = whereas with the=20 proposed new calculation:</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> a Rk 10 +2 = Dmg Dagger=20 would cost:</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> Normal - 104 sp, Silvered - = 1040 sp,=20 Gilded - 12,480 sp and</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> Truesilvered - = 18,720=20 sp</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> and a Rk 10 +2 dmg Hand and a half = Sword would=20 cost:</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> Normal - 884 sp, Silvered - 8840 = sp, Gilded=20 - 106,080 and Truesilvered</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> - 159,120 = sp</FONT>=20 <BR><FONT size=3D2>> </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>> Just far too = much.</FONT>=20 <BR><FONT size=3D2>> </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>> I = repeat:</FONT> <BR><FONT=20 size=3D2>> </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>> The Weaponsmith change = should be to=20 bring the text in line with the</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> = equation not the=20 other way round.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> </FONT><BR><FONT = size=3D2>>=20 TTFN, Struan</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> </FONT><BR><FONT = size=3D2>>=20 </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>> -- to unsubscribe notify <A=20 = href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</A= >=20 --</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> = </FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_0042_01C60478.700043D0-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are wrong)
From	Errol Cavit
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 08:34:54 +1300
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6040A.1F64F272 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yep, that seems the best approach. Mainly I wanted to leave the existing 'skill applied' formula alone as = much as possible for the purposes of getting the list OK on what we are = trying to achieve. =20 Cheers Errol -----Original Message----- From: Helen Saggers [mailto:helen@owbn.net.nz] Sent: Monday, 19 December 2005 08:45 To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Subject: Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are wrong) rather than use 179 or 9 or 119 in the formulas might not it be better = to replace the 1 with the whole 180 or which ever. =20 So a cold iron weapon is 80% base cost x(10(rk)+1+2(dm)) And a true silvered one is 80%base cost x(10(rk) +180+ 2(dm)) =20 Call the 1 10 120 or 180 metal type or some such where 1 is for cold = iron. =20 Helen ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Errol <mailto:ecavit@tollnz.co.nz> Cavit=20 To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz <mailto:dq@dq.sf.org.nz> =20 Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 11:24 PM Subject: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are wrong) Weaponsmith:=20 Issue: The formula voted in for the cost to make silvered (and gilded/true-silvered) weapons gives ridiculously high values where = weapons are 'metalled' AND weaponsmithed. This is because the 'metalling' cost multiplier (x10, x120, or x180) is applied to the full weaponsmithed cost to make - itself up to 13 times = the cost of a Rk0 weapon. So a truesilvered Rk10 Hand and a half with a +2 = DM starts out at 68sp (85 list price at 80%). It is then multiplied by 13 = for the weaponsmithing (884sp), and multiplied again by 180, to give a cost = of 159,120sp. We didn't notice this until Struan brought it up last week because the example in the Rulebook has a Rk0 weaponsmith skill applied to the = weapon. I'm fairly sure we didn't intend to do this!=20 Proposed solution: Clearly state the formula in words, get the OK from = the list to include it in the March 2006 Rulebook, and put a revised = formula in, along with a good example. So, the cost to make a cold iron weaponsmithed weapon is unchanged: 80% = of the listed 'base cost' times (rank + 1 + DM increase). If a weapon is silvered, gilded, or truesilvered, then add a cost calculated by = multiplying the weapon's 'base cost' by (10, 120, or 180), and applying the = standard 80% factor. (actually 9, 119 or 179 to account for the 1x in the weaponsmith rank applied calculation)=20 A Rk10 (+2 DM) truesilvered Hand and a half then comes out at 13,056sp=20 80% x 85 x (10[rk] + 1 + 2[DM] + 179) =3D 13,056=20 A Rk0 silvered dagger (the original example) is 80=20 80% x 10 x (0 + 1 + 0 + 9) =3D 80=20 The exact wording and formula presentation can be improved.=20 What says the list?=20 I'll only go ahead with overwhelming approval.=20 Cheers=20 Errol=20 PS Thanks to Struan for crunching the numbers=20 PPS Yes, I'm as tired of talking about this as most people=20 > -----Original Message-----=20 > From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [ mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz <mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz> ]On Behalf Of=20 > Struan Judd=20 > Sent: Tuesday, 13 December 2005 10:41=20 > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz=20 > Subject: [dq] The Weaponsmith changes are wrong=20 >=20 >=20 > Plus additional armourer changes are required.=20 >=20 > First the Armourer changes:=20 > There is no mention of of how Silvering and Truesilvering adjusts the = > cost to the Armourer of the Armour they are making (or repairing).=20 >=20 > I have a memory of this being discussed and resolved to be that the=20 > silvering and truesilvering costs are added to the final calculated=20 > cost, ie. the formula is:=20 > 80% x Base Cost =D7 (Effective Rank + 1) + (True)Silvering cost (if = > any) silver pennies.=20 >=20 > Thus for consistency the Weaponsmith change should be to bring the=20 > text in line with the equation not the other way round.=20 >=20 > My main reason is the innate value of the weapon:=20 > Using the old formula a Rk 10 +2 Dmg Dagger would cost:=20 > Normal - 104 sp, Silvered - 204 sp, Gilded - 1,304 sp and = Truesilvered=20 > - 1,904 sp=20 > and a Rk 10 +2 dmg Hand and a half Sword would cost:=20 > Normal - 884 sp, Silvered - 1,734 sp, Gilded - 11,084 and = Truesilvered=20 > - 16,184 sp=20 >=20 > whereas with the proposed new calculation:=20 > a Rk 10 +2 Dmg Dagger would cost:=20 > Normal - 104 sp, Silvered - 1040 sp, Gilded - 12,480 sp and=20 > Truesilvered - 18,720 sp=20 > and a Rk 10 +2 dmg Hand and a half Sword would cost:=20 > Normal - 884 sp, Silvered - 8840 sp, Gilded - 106,080 and = Truesilvered=20 > - 159,120 sp=20 >=20 > Just far too much.=20 >=20 > I repeat:=20 >=20 > The Weaponsmith change should be to bring the text in line with the=20 > equation not the other way round.=20 >=20 > TTFN, Struan=20 >=20 >=20 > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz <mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz> --=20 >=20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6040A.1F64F272 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <TITLE>RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are wrong)</TITLE> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><SPAN class=870132819-18122005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Yep, that seems the best approach.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=870132819-18122005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Mainly I wanted to leave the existing 'skill applied' formula alone as much as possible for the purposes of getting the list OK on what we are trying to achieve.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=870132819-18122005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=870132819-18122005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Cheers</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=870132819-18122005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Errol</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Helen Saggers [mailto:helen@owbn.net.nz]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, 19 December 2005 08:45<BR><B>To:</B> dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are wrong)<BR><BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>rather than use 179 or 9 or 119 in the formulas might not it be better to replace the 1 with the whole 180 or which ever.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>So a cold iron weapon is 80% base cost x(10(rk)+1+2(dm))</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>And a true silvered one is 80%base cost x(10(rk) +180+ 2(dm))</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Call the 1 10 120 or 180 metal type or some such where 1 is for cold iron.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Helen</FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV> <DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=ecavit@tollnz.co.nz href="mailto:ecavit@tollnz.co.nz">Errol Cavit</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=dq@dq.sf.org.nz href="mailto:dq@dq.sf.org.nz">dq@dq.sf.org.nz</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, December 18, 2005 11:24 PM</DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are wrong)</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <P><FONT size=2>Weaponsmith:</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=2>Issue: The formula voted in for the cost to make silvered (and gilded/true-silvered) weapons gives ridiculously high values where weapons are 'metalled' AND weaponsmithed.</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2>This is because the 'metalling' cost multiplier (x10, x120, or x180) is applied to the full weaponsmithed cost to make - itself up to 13 times the cost of a Rk0 weapon. So a truesilvered Rk10 Hand and a half with a +2 DM starts out at 68sp (85 list price at 80%). It is then multiplied by 13 for the weaponsmithing (884sp), and multiplied again by 180, to give a cost of 159,120sp.</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2>We didn't notice this until Struan brought it up last week because the example in the Rulebook has a Rk0 weaponsmith skill applied to the weapon.</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2>I'm fairly sure we didn't intend to do this!</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=2>Proposed solution: Clearly state the formula in words, get the OK from the list to include it in the March 2006 Rulebook, and put a revised formula in, along with a good example.</FONT></P><BR> <P><FONT size=2>So, the cost to make a cold iron weaponsmithed weapon is unchanged: 80% of the listed 'base cost' times (rank + 1 + DM increase). If a weapon is silvered, gilded, or truesilvered, then add a cost calculated by multiplying the weapon's 'base cost' by (10, 120, or 180), and applying the standard 80% factor.</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2>(actually 9, 119 or 179 to account for the 1x in the weaponsmith rank applied calculation)</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=2>A Rk10 (+2 DM) truesilvered Hand and a half then comes out at 13,056sp</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=2>80% x 85 x (10[rk] + 1 + 2[DM] + 179) = 13,056</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=2>A Rk0 silvered dagger (the original example) is 80</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=2>80% x 10 x (0 + 1 + 0 + 9) = 80</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=2>The exact wording and formula presentation can be improved.</FONT> </P><BR> <P><FONT size=2>What says the list?</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>I'll only go ahead with overwhelming approval.</FONT> </P><BR> <P><FONT size=2>Cheers</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>Errol</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=2>PS Thanks to Struan for crunching the numbers</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>PPS Yes, I'm as tired of talking about this as most people</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=2>> -----Original Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [<A href="mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</A>]On Behalf Of</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> Struan Judd</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> Sent: Tuesday, 13 December 2005 10:41</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> Subject: [dq] The Weaponsmith changes are wrong</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> Plus additional armourer changes are required.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> First the Armourer changes:</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> There is no mention of of how Silvering and Truesilvering adjusts the</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> cost to the Armourer of the Armour they are making (or repairing).</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> I have a memory of this being discussed and resolved to be that the</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> silvering and truesilvering costs are added to the final calculated</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> cost, ie. the formula is:</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>   80% x Base Cost × (Effective Rank + 1) + (True)Silvering cost (if</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> any) silver pennies.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> Thus for consistency the Weaponsmith change should be to bring the</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> text in line with the equation not the other way round.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> My main reason is the innate value of the weapon:</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> Using the old formula a Rk 10 +2 Dmg Dagger would cost:</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> Normal - 104 sp, Silvered - 204 sp, Gilded - 1,304 sp and Truesilvered</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> - 1,904 sp</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> and a Rk 10 +2 dmg Hand and a half Sword would cost:</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> Normal - 884 sp, Silvered - 1,734 sp, Gilded - 11,084 and Truesilvered</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> - 16,184 sp</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> whereas with the proposed new calculation:</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> a Rk 10 +2 Dmg Dagger would cost:</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> Normal - 104 sp, Silvered - 1040 sp, Gilded - 12,480 sp and</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> Truesilvered - 18,720 sp</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> and a Rk 10 +2 dmg Hand and a half Sword would cost:</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> Normal - 884 sp, Silvered - 8840 sp, Gilded - 106,080 and Truesilvered</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> - 159,120 sp</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> Just far too much.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> I repeat:</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> The Weaponsmith change should be to bring the text in line with the</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> equation not the other way round.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> TTFN, Struan</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> -- to unsubscribe notify <A href="mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</A> --</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> </FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6040A.1F64F272-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are wrong)
From	Martin Dickson
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 08:52:56 +1300
------=_Part_28761_20544410.1134935576321 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 12/19/05, Errol Cavit <ecavit@tollnz.co.nz> wrote: > > Yep, that seems the best approach. > OK with me, and agree that Helen's approach seems best. Cheers, Martin ------=_Part_28761_20544410.1134935576321 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 12/19/05, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">Errol Cavit</b> <<a href=3D"m= ailto:ecavit@tollnz.co.nz">ecavit@tollnz.co.nz</a>> wrote:<div><span cla= ss=3D"gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border= -left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-lef= t: 1ex;"> <div><span><font color=3D"#0000ff" face=3D"Arial" size=3D"2">Yep,=20 that seems the best approach.</font></span></div></blockquote><div><br>OK w= ith me, and agree that Helen's approach seems best.<br><br>Cheers,<br>Marti= n<br></div></div><br> ------=_Part_28761_20544410.1134935576321-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are wrong)
From	Keith Smith
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:10:20 +1300
>Yep, that seems the best approach. >Mainly I wanted to leave the existing 'skill applied' formula alone >as much as possible for the purposes of getting the list OK on what >we are trying to achieve. Make it so please Errol. I've been going back through the minutes and the original change looks like it was made way back. Weaponsmith has hardly changed at all since Bryan Holden first proposed it. The minutes for 7th May 1995 state "The current rule interpretation was clarified by Jon McSpadden: weaponsmithing and silvering price increases currently multiply". October '95 minutes says "Base Cost for weaponsmith & silvered weapons is now Base Weapon Cost * ((Weaponsmithing Rank + 1) * 0.8 + 10) and similarly for gilded and true-silver weapons." If anyone can recall any other relevant changes, please let me know as that is all I've found. So yes, let's get the current correction into the new book and we can perhaps have a closer look at it later. Personally I think the silvering costs etc should be added, or that the current multipliers may be a tad large. But that's a discussion for another time. Keith -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are wrong)
From	Struan Judd
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:18:06 +1300
Just to be clear. I agree with this change. :) TTFN, Struan. On 12/18/05, Errol Cavit <ecavit@tollnz.co.nz> wrote: > > > Weaponsmith: > > Issue: The formula voted in for the cost to make silvered (and > gilded/true-silvered) weapons gives ridiculously high values where weapons > are 'metalled' AND weaponsmithed. > > This is because the 'metalling' cost multiplier (x10, x120, or x180) is > applied to the full weaponsmithed cost to make - itself up to 13 times the > cost of a Rk0 weapon. So a truesilvered Rk10 Hand and a half with a +2 DM > starts out at 68sp (85 list price at 80%). It is then multiplied by 13 for > the weaponsmithing (884sp), and multiplied again by 180, to give a cost of > 159,120sp. > > We didn't notice this until Struan brought it up last week because the > example in the Rulebook has a Rk0 weaponsmith skill applied to the weapon. > > I'm fairly sure we didn't intend to do this! > > Proposed solution: Clearly state the formula in words, get the OK from the > list to include it in the March 2006 Rulebook, and put a revised formula in, > along with a good example. > > > So, the cost to make a cold iron weaponsmithed weapon is unchanged: 80% of > the listed 'base cost' times (rank + 1 + DM increase). If a weapon is > silvered, gilded, or truesilvered, then add a cost calculated by multiplying > the weapon's 'base cost' by (10, 120, or 180), and applying the standard > 80% factor. > > (actually 9, 119 or 179 to account for the 1x in the weaponsmith rank > applied calculation) > > A Rk10 (+2 DM) truesilvered Hand and a half then comes out at 13,056sp > > 80% x 85 x (10[rk] + 1 + 2[DM] + 179) = 13,056 > > A Rk0 silvered dagger (the original example) is 80 > > 80% x 10 x (0 + 1 + 0 + 9) = 80 -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Rulebook fixes - weather table
From	Jonathan Bean - TME
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:44:21 +1200
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C60480.CA007370 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Rulebook fixes (was Character Generation)Hi all, Regarding the Wather Table 1.0 and Weather Table 1.1 Some random history: As some of you know (if I am remembering correctly) the time line for Air and Ice and the Weather table went like this: Talk of an Ice College Air rewrite done Ice Spells dropped from Air to move them to the new Ice College Ice done Air College 2.0 with Weather Table 1.1 voted into play - sometime around Sept 1995 Ice College shortly after (may have been same time) came into play. Some player Air Mages become unhappy that 'there Ice blast' spells where gone. Gods meeting agreed that the college needed re-fixing. Jon McSpadden put in S18 and S19, which is why the Specials are not alphabetically currently. These where voted into play. AT THIS POINT The rewrite of the Air College did not take into account the Weather Table 1.1 but instead used Weather table 1.0 I do not recall a vote on this and I believe it to be an error. I would like to see the Weather Table 1.1 put into play as it address's a number of issues with the 1.0 table and rainfall (140 inches per hour). I do not this is a voting issue but a correction. I have a copy and have given the details of the difference between - Weather table 1.0 and Weather table 1.1 to Errol. Upshot of differences that the rainfall is measured in mm not inches per hour, and that the max is up to 35mm per hour not 160 inches (13 feet of water per hour). Weather Table 1.0 Degree Cloud Precipitation Inches / Hour 0 Clear Dry, high fire danger 0 1 Clear Dry, fires easy to start 0 2 Clear Comfortable 0 3 Sparse Humid, uncomfortable in high temperature 1 4 Light Damp 2 5 Cloudy Drizzle, fog in cold conditions 3 6 Overcast Showers 4 7 Heavy Cloud Light rain, leaves move, fires difficult to start 5 8 Dark Cloud Average rain 10 9 Low black cloud Heavy rain, small branches move, small fires doused 20 10 * Oppressive Torrential rain, river rise, large fires doused 40 11 Oppressive Flood warning, rivers burst their banks 80 12+* Oppressive Flash floods 160 Weather Table 1.1Degree Cloud Precipitation mm / Hour0 Clear Dry, high fire danger 01 Clear Dry, fires easy to start 02 Clear Comfortable 03 Sparse Humid, uncomfortable in high temperature 14 Light Damp 25 Cloudy Drizzle, fog in cold conditions 36 Overcast Showers 47 Heavy Cloud Light rain, leaves move, fires difficult to start 58 Dark Cloud Average rain 109 Low black cloud Heavy rain, small branches move, small fires doused 1510 * Oppressive Torrential rain, river rise, large fires doused 2011 Oppressive Flood warning, rivers burst their banks 2512+* Oppressive Flash floods 35 What do others think? Jonathan Bean -----Original Message----- From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of Jonathan Bean - TME Sent: Sunday, 18 December 2005 3:54 p.m. To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Subject: [dq] Rulebook fixes - weather table Hi All, Errol do you know if the 'missed weather table' (missed when the new Air College came in) is to be included with this rule book? Since it has been missed out from the rules for so long, and the old table has been in use as standard, do people want to re-vote on the issue? Or do we want to say that since it was voted on, and fixed a couple of known issues with the old weather table - that we are happy to put the new weather table into play (as it should have been since 1999ish). Jonathan Bean ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C60480.CA007370 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Rulebook fixes (was Character Generation)</TITLE> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1528" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY><SPAN class=3D342042321-18122005><FONT face=3DArial = color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20 lang=3DEN-NZ style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"> <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Hi = all,</SPAN></P> <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></SPAN><SPAN=20 style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN-AU"><?xml:namespace prefix =3D o ns =3D=20 "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p><SPAN=20 class=3D342042321-18122005>Regarding the Wather Table 1.0 and Weather = Table=20 1.1</SPAN></o:p></SPAN></P> <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN=20 style=3D"mso-ansi-language: EN-AU"><o:p><SPAN=20 class=3D342042321-18122005></SPAN></o:p></SPAN> </P> <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Some random=20 history:<SPAN class=3D342042321-18122005> </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN = lang=3DEN-NZ=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">As some of = you know (if=20 I am remembering correctly) the time line for Air and Ice and the = Weather table=20 went like this:</SPAN><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P> <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN = lang=3DEN-NZ><FONT=20 size=3D3><FONT color=3D#000000><FONT=20 face=3D"Times New = Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P> <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Talk of an = Ice=20 College</SPAN><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P> <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Air rewrite = done=20 </SPAN><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P> <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Ice Spells = dropped from=20 Air to move them to <SPAN class=3D342042321-18122005>the new = </SPAN>Ice<SPAN=20 class=3D342042321-18122005> College</SPAN></SPAN></P> <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Ice = done</SPAN><SPAN=20 lang=3DEN-NZ><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P> <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Air College = 2.0 with=20 Weather Table 1.1 voted into play - <SPAN = class=3D342042321-18122005>sometime=20 around </SPAN>Sept 1995</SPAN><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P> <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Ice College = shortly=20 after (may have been same time) came into play.</SPAN><SPAN=20 lang=3DEN-NZ><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P> <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: = Arial">Some <SPAN=20 class=3D342042321-18122005>player </SPAN>Air Mages become unhappy that = 'there Ice=20 blast' spells where gone.</SPAN></P> <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></SPAN><SPAN=20 lang=3DEN-NZ><o:p><SPAN class=3D342042321-18122005>Gods meeting agreed = that the=20 college needed re-fixing.</SPAN></o:p></SPAN></P> <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Jon McSpadden = put in=20 S18 and S19, which is why the Specials are not alphabetically=20 currently.</SPAN><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P> <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">These where = voted into=20 play.</SPAN><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P> <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN = lang=3DEN-NZ><FONT=20 size=3D3><FONT color=3D#000000><FONT=20 face=3D"Times New = Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P> <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">AT THIS=20 POINT</SPAN><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P> <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">The rewrite = of the Air=20 College did not take into account the Weather Table 1.1 but instead used = Weather=20 table 1.0</SPAN><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P> <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I do not = recall a vote=20 on this and I believe it to be an error.</SPAN><SPAN=20 lang=3DEN-NZ><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P> <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN = lang=3DEN-NZ><FONT=20 size=3D3><FONT color=3D#000000><FONT=20 face=3D"Times New = Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P> <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I would like = to see the=20 Weather Table 1.1 put into play as it address's a number of issues with = the 1.0=20 table and rainfall (140 inches per hour).</SPAN><SPAN=20 lang=3DEN-NZ><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P> <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I do not this = is a=20 voting issue but a correction.</SPAN><SPAN = lang=3DEN-NZ><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P> <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN = lang=3DEN-NZ><FONT=20 size=3D3><FONT color=3D#000000><FONT=20 face=3D"Times New = Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P> <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">I have a copy = and have=20 given the details of the difference between - Weather table 1.0 and = Weather=20 table 1.1 to Errol.</SPAN><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P> <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Upshot of = differences=20 that the rainfall is measured in mm not inches per hour, and that the = max=20 is <SPAN class=3D342042321-18122005>up to </SPAN>35mm per hour not = 1<SPAN=20 class=3D342042321-18122005>6</SPAN>0 inches<SPAN = class=3D342042321-18122005> (13=20 feet of water per hour)</SPAN>.</SPAN><SPAN = lang=3DEN-NZ><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P> <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN = lang=3DEN-NZ><FONT=20 size=3D3><FONT color=3D#000000><FONT=20 face=3D"Times New Roman"></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN> </P> <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN = lang=3DEN-NZ><SPAN=20 class=3D342042321-18122005><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" = color=3D#000000=20 size=3D3></FONT></SPAN></SPAN> </P></FONT><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ> <DIV><SPAN class=3D342042321-18122005><FONT face=3D"Courier New">Weather = Table=20 1.0</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D"Courier New"><SPAN = class=3D342042321-18122005>D</SPAN>egree=20 Cloud <SPAN=20 class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p;      </SPAN>Precipitation <SPAN=20 class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p;           &nbsp= ;            =            =20 </SPAN>Inches / Hour</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D"Courier New">0 <SPAN=20 class=3D342042321-18122005>     = </SPAN>Clear <SPAN=20 class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p;      </SPAN>Dry,=20 high fire danger <SPAN=20 class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p;           &nbsp= ;            =        =20 </SPAN>0</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D"Courier New">1 <SPAN=20 class=3D342042321-18122005>     = </SPAN>Clear <SPAN=20 class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p;      </SPAN>Dry,=20 fires easy to start <SPAN=20 class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p;           &nbsp= ;            =      </SPAN>0</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D"Courier New">2 <SPAN=20 class=3D342042321-18122005>     = </SPAN>Clear <SPAN=20 class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p;      </SPAN>Comfortable <SPAN=20 class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p;           &nbsp= ;            =             &= nbsp;     </SPAN>0</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D"Courier New">3 <SPAN=20 class=3D342042321-18122005>     </SPAN>Sparse&nb= sp;<SPAN=20 class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p;    =20 </SPAN>Humid, uncomfortable in high temperature <SPAN=20 class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p;           &nbsp= ;=20 </SPAN>1</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D"Courier New">4 <SPAN=20 class=3D342042321-18122005>     = </SPAN>Light <SPAN=20 class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p;      </SPAN>Damp <SPAN=20 class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p;           &nbsp= ;            =             &= nbsp;           =20 </SPAN>2</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D"Courier New">5 <SPAN=20 class=3D342042321-18122005>     = </SPAN>Cloudy <SPAN=20 class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p;    =20 </SPAN>Drizzle, fog in cold conditions <SPAN=20 class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p;           &nbsp= ;          </SPAN>3</FO= NT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D"Courier New">6 <SPAN=20 class=3D342042321-18122005>     = </SPAN>Overcast <SPAN=20 class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p;   </SPAN>Showers <SPAN=20 class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p;           &nbsp= ;            =             &= nbsp;         </SPAN>4</FONT= ></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D"Courier New">7 <SPAN=20 class=3D342042321-18122005>     </SPAN>Heavy = Cloud <SPAN=20 class=3D342042321-18122005>        = </SPAN>Light=20 rain, leaves move, fires difficult to start <SPAN=20 class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p;   =20 </SPAN>5</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D"Courier New">8 <SPAN=20 class=3D342042321-18122005>     </SPAN>Dark = Cloud <SPAN=20 class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p; </SPAN>Average=20 rain <SPAN=20 class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p;           &nbsp= ;            =             &= nbsp;  =20 </SPAN>10</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D"Courier New">9 <SPAN=20 class=3D342042321-18122005>     </SPAN>Low black=20 cloud <SPAN class=3D342042321-18122005>    = </SPAN>Heavy rain,=20 small branches move, small fires doused <SPAN=20 class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p; </SPAN>20</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D"Courier New">10 * <SPAN = class=3D342042321-18122005> =20 </SPAN>Oppressive <SPAN=20 class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p;=20 </SPAN>Torrential rain, river rise, large fires doused <SPAN=20 class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p;    =20 </SPAN>40</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D"Courier New">11  <SPAN = class=3D342042321-18122005>=20 </SPAN>Oppressive <SPAN=20 class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p;=20 </SPAN>Flood warning, rivers burst their banks <SPAN=20 class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p;           &nbsp= ;=20 </SPAN>80</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D"Courier New">12+<SPAN class=3D342042321-18122005>=20 </SPAN>Oppressive <SPAN=20 class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p; </SPAN>Flash=20 floods <SPAN=20 class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p;           &nbsp= ;            =             &= nbsp;  </SPAN>160</FONT></DIV></SPAN><PRE class=3DMsoNormal = style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ></SPAN> </PRE><PRE = class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN = lang=3DEN-NZ></SPAN> </PRE><PRE class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: = 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ><FONT face=3DArial> = </FONT><DIV><SPAN class=3D342042321-18122005><FONT face=3D"Courier = New">Weather Table 1.1</FONT></SPAN></DIV><DIV><FONT face=3D"Courier = New"><SPAN class=3D342042321-18122005>D</SPAN>egree Cloud <SPAN = class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p;      </SPAN>Precipitation <SPAN = class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p;           &nbsp= ;            =             = mm</SPAN> / Hour</FONT></DIV><DIV><FONT face=3D"Courier = New">0 <SPAN class=3D342042321-18122005>     = </SPAN>Clear <SPAN = class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p;      </SPAN>Dry, high fire = danger <SPAN = class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p;           &nbsp= ;            =         = </SPAN>0</FONT></DIV><DIV><FONT face=3D"Courier New">1 <SPAN = class=3D342042321-18122005>     = </SPAN>Clear <SPAN = class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p;      </SPAN>Dry, fires easy to = start <SPAN = class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p;           &nbsp= ;            =      </SPAN>0</FONT></DIV><DIV><FONT = face=3D"Courier New">2 <SPAN = class=3D342042321-18122005>     = </SPAN>Clear <SPAN = class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p;      </SPAN>Comfortable <SPAN = class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p;           &nbsp= ;            =             &= nbsp;     </SPAN>0</FONT></DIV><DIV><FONT = face=3D"Courier New">3 <SPAN = class=3D342042321-18122005>     </SPAN>Sparse&nb= sp;<SPAN = class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p;     </SPAN>Humid, uncomfortable in high = temperature <SPAN = class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p;           &nbsp= ; </SPAN>1</FONT></DIV><DIV><FONT face=3D"Courier New">4 <SPAN = class=3D342042321-18122005>     = </SPAN>Light <SPAN = class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p;      </SPAN>Damp <SPAN = class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p;           &nbsp= ;            =             &= nbsp;            = </SPAN>2</FONT></DIV><DIV><FONT face=3D"Courier New">5 <SPAN = class=3D342042321-18122005>     = </SPAN>Cloudy <SPAN = class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p;     </SPAN>Drizzle, fog in cold = conditions <SPAN = class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p;           &nbsp= ;          </SPAN>3</FO= NT></DIV><DIV><FONT face=3D"Courier New">6 <SPAN = class=3D342042321-18122005>     = </SPAN>Overcast <SPAN = class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p;   </SPAN>Showers <SPAN = class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p;           &nbsp= ;            =             &= nbsp;         </SPAN>4</FONT= ></DIV><DIV><FONT face=3D"Courier New">7 <SPAN = class=3D342042321-18122005>     </SPAN>Heavy = Cloud <SPAN = class=3D342042321-18122005>        = </SPAN>Light rain, leaves move, fires difficult to start <SPAN = class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p;    </SPAN>5</FONT></DIV><DIV><FONT face=3D"Courier = New">8 <SPAN class=3D342042321-18122005>     = </SPAN>Dark Cloud <SPAN = class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p; </SPAN>Average rain <SPAN = class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p;           &nbsp= ;            =             &= nbsp;   </SPAN>10</FONT></DIV><DIV><FONT face=3D"Courier = New">9 <SPAN class=3D342042321-18122005>     = </SPAN>Low black cloud <SPAN = class=3D342042321-18122005>    </SPAN>Heavy rain, small = branches move, small fires doused <SPAN = class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p; 15</SPAN></FONT></DIV><DIV><FONT face=3D"Courier New">10 =  <SPAN class=3D342042321-18122005>  = </SPAN>Oppressive <SPAN = class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p; </SPAN>Torrential rain, river rise, large fires doused <SPAN = class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p;     20</SPAN></FONT></DIV><DIV><FONT = face=3D"Courier New">11  <SPAN class=3D342042321-18122005> = </SPAN>Oppressive <SPAN = class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p; </SPAN>Flood warning, rivers burst their banks <SPAN = class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p;           &nbsp= ; 25</SPAN></FONT></DIV><DIV><FONT face=3D"Courier New">12+*<SPAN = class=3D342042321-18122005> </SPAN>Oppressive <SPAN = class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p; </SPAN>Flash floods <SPAN = class=3D342042321-18122005>       &nbs= p;           &nbsp= ;            =             &= nbsp;   35</SPAN></FONT></DIV></SPAN></SPAN></PRE><FONT=20 face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2> <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN = lang=3DEN-NZ><FONT=20 size=3D3><FONT color=3D#000000><FONT=20 face=3D"Times New = Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P> <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">What do = others=20 think?</SPAN></P> <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></SPAN><SPAN=20 lang=3DEN-NZ><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P> <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Jonathan=20 Bean</SPAN><SPAN lang=3DEN-NZ><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P> <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN = lang=3DEN-NZ><FONT=20 size=3D3><FONT color=3D#000000><FONT=20 face=3D"Times New = Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></P> <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0cm 0cm = 0pt"></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></P> <DIV><SPAN class=3D342042321-18122005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff = size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20 style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px = solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT = face=3DTahoma=20 size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> = dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz=20 [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]<B>On Behalf Of </B>Jonathan Bean -=20 TME<BR><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, 18 December 2005 3:54 p.m.<BR><B>To:</B>=20 dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> [dq] Rulebook fixes - weather=20 table<BR><BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D409434903-18122005><FONT face=3DArial = color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>Hi=20 All,</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D409434903-18122005><FONT face=3DArial = color=3D#0000ff=20 size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D409434903-18122005><FONT face=3DArial = color=3D#0000ff=20 size=3D2>Errol do you know if the 'missed weather table' (missed when = the=20 new Air College came in) is to be included with this rule=20 book?</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D409434903-18122005><FONT face=3DArial = color=3D#0000ff=20 size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D409434903-18122005><FONT face=3DArial = color=3D#0000ff=20 size=3D2>Since it has been missed out from the rules for so long, and = the old=20 table has been in use as standard, do people want to re-vote on the=20 issue?</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D409434903-18122005><FONT face=3DArial = color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>Or=20 do we want to say that since it was voted on, and fixed a couple of = known=20 issues with the old weather table - that we are happy to put the=20 </FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D409434903-18122005><FONT face=3DArial = color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>new=20 weather table into play (as it should have been since=20 1999ish).</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D409434903-18122005><FONT face=3DArial = color=3D#0000ff=20 size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D409434903-18122005><FONT face=3DArial = color=3D#0000ff=20 size=3D2>Jonathan Bean</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D409434903-18122005><FONT face=3DArial = color=3D#0000ff=20 size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C60480.CA007370-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	[dq] RULEBOOK FIX - Weather chart in Air college
From	Errol Cavit
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:56:25 +1300
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C60415.825C06B2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" After talking with Jono, it seems that the Weather Scale Table was accidentally reverted to the version in use before the Ice College and Air College 2.0 came into play. When Air College 2.1 came in (re-introducing some spells removed when Ice was introduced), the table in the rulebook was reverted as well, when it should have been unchanged. This is the table with silly numbers for 'Inches/Hour' that have been brought up a couple of times (see below Jono's post). The corrected table gives much more sensible numbers. They are in mm/hour (this was because people had a better concept in their minds of rainfall numbers in this form), I don't see why we couldn't give both mm and inches. The text seems to be what people use as a guide in any case. I will put this in place unless there are screams to the contrary. From Jono's hard copy, the amounts in mm/hour are: Degree ,Cloud ,,Precipitation ,,mm / Hour 0 ,Clear ,,Dry, high fire danger ,,0 1 ,Clear ,,Dry, fires easy to start ,,0 2 ,Clear ,,Comfortable ,,0 3 ,Sparse ,,Humid, uncomfortable in high temperature ,,1 4 ,Light ,,Damp ,,2 5 ,Cloudy ,,Drizzle, fog in cold conditions ,,3 6 ,Overcast ,,Showers ,,4 7 ,Heavy Cloud ,,Light rain, leaves move, fires difficult to start ,,5 8 ,Dark Cloud ,Average rain ,,10 9 ,Low black cloud ,Heavy rain, small branches move, small fires doused ,,15 10 * ,Oppressive ,Torrential rain, river rise, large fires doused ,,20 11 ,Oppressive ,Flood warning, rivers burst their banks ,,25 12+* ,Oppressive ,Flash floods ,,35 Cheers Errol -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Bean - TME [mailto:Jonathan@tme.co.nz] Sent: Sunday, 18 December 2005 16:54 To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Subject: [dq] Rulebook fixes - weather table Hi All, Errol do you know if the 'missed weather table' (missed when the new Air College came in) is to be included with this rule book? Since it has been missed out from the rules for so long, and the old table has been in use as standard, do people want to re-vote on the issue? Or do we want to say that since it was voted on, and fixed a couple of known issues with the old weather table - that we are happy to put the new weather table into play (as it should have been since 1999ish). Jonathan Bean > -----Original Message----- > From: stephen_martin@clear.net.nz [mailto:stephen_martin@clear.net.nz] > Sent: Tuesday, 22 October 2002 13:05 > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Re: [dq] Weather chart in Air college > > > Wicca can alter rainfall with their control weather ritual, > not sure about Air > mages but I assume their Control Weather can too. > And yes it is scary. A few years ago I had a Wicca cover a > mountain with a > couple of yards of snow in spring/summer for their > convenience, when it melted > it caused flooding in the local area destroying crops, > livestock, some immediate > loss of life, then there were the longer term effects. > Fortuantely for the locals it was accidental, a malicious > Wicca would summon > the heaviest rainfall they could to accompany the snow melt > and cause even more > devastation. > The best part of this is that with a bit of advance planning > you can cause damage > 100 miles away a day after you were there, like spring floods > in Australia - > they can have flooding when they never even saw the rain that > caused it. > > This is all just taking the weather gauge at it's descriptive levels. > As far as fixing the numbers... halve them and change the > scale to inches per > day? > > Warning of the day - don't mess with Wicca if you own any > land. Curse Crops/Livestock, > Control Weather for alternating weeks of baking hot arid > weather and flooding. > > And if you're marching an Army anywhere take your own Wicca > to ensure the weather > stays on your side. > > > > >hi there, > > > >Can anyone alter amount of rain falling on the Degree Table > in the Air > >college ? I would scared of anyone who can cause or increase > rainfall using > > >that chart...read on to find out why... > > > >I was looking through these tables (18.9, Page 67), for > reference purposes, > > >and I noticed that either Alusia is wetter than I thought, > or there has been > > >a reporting error in the Degree table (copied below, comma > delineated for > >those with spreadsheet access): > > > >Degree, Cloud, Precipitation > > , ,(Inches / Hour) > >0, Clear, Dry; high fire danger, 0 > >1, Clear, Dry; fires easy to start, 0 > >2, Clear, Comfortable, 0 > >3, Sparse, Humid; uncomfortable in high temperature, 1 > >4, Light, Damp, 2 > >5, Cloudy, Drizzle; fog in cold conditions, 3 > >6, Overcast, Showers, 4 > >7, Heavy Cloud, Light rain; leaves move; fires difficult to start, 5 > >8, Dark Cloud, Average rain, 10 > >9, Low black cloud, Heavy rain; small branches move; small > fires doused, 20 > > >10 , Oppressive, Torrential rain; river rise; large fires doused, 40 > >11 , Oppressive, Flood warning; rivers burst their banks, 80 > >12+, Oppressive, Flash floods, 160 > > > >Were these meant to be in mm/hour? > > > >Reasons for my astonishment** > >The NZ Met Service issues a heavy rain warning if there is > likely to be more > > >than 50 mm in 24 hours. > > > >Fiordland is one of the wettest places on earth, receiving > 21 feet, or 252 > > >inches of rain in a year. That is about 90 minutes of rain > at Degree 12, 3 > > >hours at Degee 11, 13 hours at Degree 10 etc. > > > >By this logic, Fiordland must never experience Opressive > rain, so as long as > > >your campfires are large, it will not be rained out. And > even low black > >clouds would be rare. > > > >I tell you, I am going to pay more attention to the predict > weather talent > > >in future... > > > >Ian > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C60415.825C06B2 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version = 5.5.2658.2"> <TITLE>RULEBOOK FIX - Weather chart in Air college</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>After talking with Jono, it seems that the Weather = Scale Table was accidentally reverted to the version in use before the = Ice College and Air College 2.0 came into play. When Air College 2.1 = came in (re-introducing some spells removed when Ice was introduced), = the table in the rulebook was reverted as well, when it should have = been unchanged.</FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>This is the table with silly numbers for = 'Inches/Hour' that have been brought up a couple of times (see below = Jono's post).</FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>The corrected table gives much more sensible numbers. = They are in mm/hour (this was because people had a better concept in = their minds of rainfall numbers in this form), I don't see why we = couldn't give both mm and inches. The text seems to be what people use = as a guide in any case.</FONT></P> <BR> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I will put this in place unless there are screams to = the contrary.</FONT> </P> <BR> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>From Jono's hard copy, the amounts in mm/hour = are:</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Degree ,Cloud ,,Precipitation ,,mm / Hour</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>0 ,Clear ,,Dry, high fire danger ,,0</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>1 ,Clear ,,Dry, fires easy to start ,,0</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>2 ,Clear ,,Comfortable ,,0</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>3 ,Sparse ,,Humid, uncomfortable in high temperature = ,,1</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>4 ,Light ,,Damp ,,2</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>5 ,Cloudy ,,Drizzle, fog in cold conditions = ,,3</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>6 ,Overcast ,,Showers ,,4</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>7 ,Heavy Cloud ,,Light rain, leaves move, fires = difficult to start ,,5</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>8 ,Dark Cloud ,Average rain ,,10</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>9 ,Low black cloud ,Heavy rain, small branches move, = small fires doused ,,15</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>10 * ,Oppressive ,Torrential rain, river rise, large = fires doused ,,20</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>11 ,Oppressive ,Flood warning, rivers burst their = banks ,,25</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>12+* ,Oppressive ,Flash floods ,,35</FONT> </P> <BR> <BR> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Cheers</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Errol</FONT> </P> <BR> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>-----Original Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>From: Jonathan Bean - TME [<A = HREF=3D"mailto:Jonathan@tme.co.nz">mailto:Jonathan@tme.co.nz</A>]</FONT>= <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sent: Sunday, 18 December 2005 16:54</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Subject: [dq] Rulebook fixes - weather table</FONT> </P> <BR> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Hi All,</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Errol do you know if the 'missed weather table' = (missed when the new Air College came in) is to be included with this = rule book?</FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Since it has been missed out from the rules for so = long, and the old table has been in use as standard, do people want to = re-vote on the issue?</FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Or do we want to say that since it was voted on, and = fixed a couple of known issues with the old weather table - that we are = happy to put the </FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>new weather table into play (as it should have been = since 1999ish).</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Jonathan Bean</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>> -----Original Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> From: stephen_martin@clear.net.nz [<A = HREF=3D"mailto:stephen_martin@clear.net.nz">mailto:stephen_martin@clear.= net.nz</A>]</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Sent: Tuesday, 22 October 2002 13:05</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Subject: Re: [dq] Weather chart in Air college</= FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Wicca can alter rainfall with their control = weather ritual, </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> not sure about Air</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> mages but I assume their Control Weather can = too.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> And yes it is scary.  A few years ago I = had a Wicca cover a </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> mountain with a</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> couple of yards of snow in spring/summer for = their </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> convenience, when it melted</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> it caused flooding in the local area destroying = crops, </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> livestock, some immediate</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> loss of life, then there were the longer term = effects.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Fortuantely for the locals it was accidental, a = malicious </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Wicca would summon</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> the heaviest rainfall they could to accompany = the snow melt </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> and cause even more</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> devastation.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> The best part of this is that with a bit of = advance planning </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> you can cause damage</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> 100 miles away a day after you were there, like = spring floods </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> in Australia -</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> they can have flooding when they never even saw = the rain that </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> caused it.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> This is all just taking the weather gauge at = it's descriptive levels.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> As far as fixing the numbers... halve them and = change the </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> scale to inches per</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> day?</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Warning of the day - don't mess with Wicca if = you own any </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> land.  Curse Crops/Livestock,</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Control Weather for alternating  weeks of = baking hot arid </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> weather and flooding.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> And if you're marching an Army anywhere take = your own Wicca </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> to ensure the weather</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> stays on your side.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >hi there,</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >Can anyone alter amount of rain falling on = the Degree Table </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> in the Air</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >college ? I would scared of anyone who can = cause or increase </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> rainfall using</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >that chart...read on to find out = why...</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >I was looking through these tables (18.9, = Page 67), for </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> reference purposes,</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >and I noticed that either Alusia is wetter = than I thought, </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> or there has been</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >a reporting error in the Degree table = (copied below, comma </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> delineated for</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >those with spreadsheet access):</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >Degree, Cloud, Precipitation</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > , ,(Inches / Hour)</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >0, Clear, Dry; high fire danger, 0</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >1, Clear, Dry; fires easy to start, = 0</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >2, Clear, Comfortable, 0</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >3, Sparse, Humid; uncomfortable in high = temperature, 1</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >4, Light, Damp, 2</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >5, Cloudy, Drizzle; fog in cold conditions, = 3</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >6, Overcast, Showers, 4</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >7, Heavy Cloud, Light rain; leaves move; = fires difficult to start, 5</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >8, Dark Cloud, Average rain, 10</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >9, Low black cloud, Heavy rain; small = branches move; small </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> fires doused, 20</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >10 , Oppressive, Torrential rain; river = rise; large fires doused, 40</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >11 , Oppressive, Flood warning; rivers = burst their banks, 80</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >12+, Oppressive, Flash floods, = 160</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >Were these meant to be in mm/hour?</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >Reasons for my astonishment**</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >The NZ Met Service issues a heavy rain = warning if there is </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> likely to be more</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >than 50 mm in 24 hours.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >Fiordland is one of the wettest places on = earth, receiving </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> 21 feet, or 252</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >inches of rain in a year. That is about 90 = minutes of rain </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> at Degree 12, 3</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >hours at Degee 11, 13 hours at Degree 10 = etc.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >By this logic, Fiordland must never = experience Opressive </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> rain, so as long as</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >your campfires are large, it will not be = rained out. And </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> even low black</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >clouds would be rare.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >I tell you, I am going to pay more = attention to the predict </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> weather talent</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >in future...</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >Ian</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> -- to unsubscribe notify <A = HREF=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</= A> --</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> </P> </BODY> </HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C60415.825C06B2-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX - Weather chart in Air college
From	Clare Baldock
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 10:15:35 +1300
On 19/12/2005, at 09:56, Errol Cavit wrote: > After talking with Jono, it seems that the Weather Scale Table was > accidentally reverted to the version in use before the Ice College and > Air College 2.0 came into play. When Air College 2.1 came in > (re-introducing some spells removed when Ice was introduced), the > table in the rulebook was reverted as well, when it should have been > unchanged. > > This is the table with silly numbers for 'Inches/Hour' that have been > brought up a couple of times (see below Jono's post). > > The corrected table gives much more sensible numbers. They are in > mm/hour (this was because people had a better concept in their minds > of rainfall numbers in this form), I don't see why we couldn't give > both mm and inches. The text seems to be what people use as a guide in > any case. > > > I will put this in place unless there are screams to the contrary. Yes this change is needed - 13 feet of rain per hour is just ludicrous, cheers, clare -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX - Weather chart in Air college
From	Struan Judd
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 10:22:31 +1300
On 12/19/05, Errol Cavit <ecavit@tollnz.co.nz> wrote: > > > After talking with Jono, it seems that the Weather Scale Table was > accidentally reverted to the version in use before the Ice College and Air > College 2.0 came into play. When Air College 2.1 came in (re-introducing > some spells removed when Ice was introduced), the table in the rulebook was > reverted as well, when it should have been unchanged. > > This is the table with silly numbers for 'Inches/Hour' that have been > brought up a couple of times (see below Jono's post). > > The corrected table gives much more sensible numbers. They are in mm/hour > (this was because people had a better concept in their minds of rainfall > numbers in this form), I don't see why we couldn't give both mm and inches. > The text seems to be what people use as a guide in any case. > > > I will put this in place unless there are screams to the contrary. Whilst I agree that sensible number are an excellent idea, I would far rather that the table's offical numbers were in inches per hour with parenthetical equivalents in mm per hour. I just want to retain the "Imperial" flavour of the game and rule book. I know some GM's have used the "elven" yard of 39 inches, etc, etc but I do like that we have the "old" measurement systems TTFN, Struan -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are wrong)
From	Helen Saggers
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 10:49:16 +1300
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0084_01C60489.DB5FFF10 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are wrong)It just seemed more = logical, and far simpler than taking 1 off only to add it back on again. For a rank 0 -10 weapon the + 1 in the formula gives the base = construction cost cold iron, replace the +1 with the factor for the = metal type (10, 120, 180) and you get the construction cost for a weapon = smithed weapon of that type.=20 Nice and simple, and probably what should have been there in the first = place but as we know the formula was wrong to start that's why your = fixing it. Helen ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Errol Cavit=20 Yep, that seems the best approach. Mainly I wanted to leave the existing 'skill applied' formula alone as = much as possible for the purposes of getting the list OK on what we are = trying to achieve. Cheers Errol ------=_NextPart_000_0084_01C60489.DB5FFF10 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD><TITLE>RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are = wrong)</TITLE> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1528" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>It just seemed more logical, and far = simpler than=20 taking 1 off only to add it back on again.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>For a rank 0 -10 weapon the + = 1 in the=20 formula gives the base construction cost cold iron, = replace the=20 +1 with the factor for the metal type (10, 120, 180) and you get = the=20 construction cost for a weapon smithed weapon of that type.=20 </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Nice and simple, and probably what = should have been=20 there in the first place but as we know the formula was wrong to start = that's=20 why your fixing it.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Helen</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20 style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; = BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: = black"><B>From:</B>=20 <A title=3Decavit@tollnz.co.nz = href=3D"mailto:ecavit@tollnz.co.nz">Errol Cavit</A>=20 </DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D870132819-18122005><FONT face=3DArial = color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>Yep,=20 that seems the best approach.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D870132819-18122005><FONT face=3DArial = color=3D#0000ff=20 size=3D2>Mainly I wanted to leave the existing 'skill applied' formula = alone as=20 much as possible for the purposes of getting the list OK on what we = are trying=20 to achieve.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D870132819-18122005><FONT face=3DArial = color=3D#0000ff=20 size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D870132819-18122005><FONT face=3DArial = color=3D#0000ff=20 size=3D2>Cheers</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D870132819-18122005><FONT face=3DArial = color=3D#0000ff=20 size=3D2>Errol</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20 style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px = solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><FONT=20 face=3DTahoma = size=3D2></FONT> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_0084_01C60489.DB5FFF10-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Rulebook fixes - weather table
From	Keith Smith
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 10:43:33 +1300
>Some random history: As some of you know (if I am remembering >correctly) the time line for Air and Ice and the Weather table went like this: > > > >Talk of an Ice College > >Air rewrite done > >Ice Spells dropped from Air to move them to the new Ice College > >Ice done > >Air College 2.0 with Weather Table 1.1 voted into play - sometime >around Sept 1995 > >Ice College shortly after (may have been same time) came into play. > >Some player Air Mages become unhappy that 'there Ice blast' spells where gone. > >Gods meeting agreed that the college needed re-fixing. > >Jon McSpadden put in S18 and S19, which is why the Specials are not >alphabetically currently. > >These where voted into play. > > > >AT THIS POINT > >The rewrite of the Air College did not take into account the Weather >Table 1.1 but instead used Weather table 1.0 > >I do not recall a vote on this and I believe it to be an error. > > > >I would like to see the Weather Table 1.1 put into play as it >address's a number of issues with the 1.0 table and rainfall (140 >inches per hour). > >I do not this is a voting issue but a correction. I've looked through the minutes and I'm quite confident Jono is correct. I can't find any reference to the weather table being reverted. Keith -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX - Weather chart in Air college
From	Helen Saggers
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 11:11:39 +1300
Yes change it, biblical floods should be the province of Gods not mages. I'd also like go with both inches and mm we do every thing else in feet etc. lets at least try to keep consistency Helen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Clare Baldock" <clare@orcon.net.nz> > > Yes this change is needed - 13 feet of rain per hour is just ludicrous, > > cheers, > > clare -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX - Weather chart in Air college
From	Martin Dickson
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 11:13:31 +1300
------=_Part_30241_15877655.1134944011926 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 12/19/05, Helen Saggers <helen@owbn.net.nz> wrote: > > I'd also like go with both inches and mm we do every thing else in feet > etc. > lets at least try to keep consistency Another yep for the table fix, and major preference for Imperial as primary units of measure -- or indeed only units, (being old enough to have been in school -- if only just -- before the introduction of metric in NZ). (But I have no objection to parenthetical SI units if young whipper-snapper= s feel it useful). :-) Cheers, Martin ------=_Part_30241_15877655.1134944011926 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 12/19/05, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">Helen Saggers</b> <<a href=3D= "mailto:helen@owbn.net.nz">helen@owbn.net.nz</a>> wrote:<div><span class= =3D"gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-l= eft: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left:= 1ex;"> I'd also like go with both inches and mm we do every thing else in feet etc= .<br>lets at least try to keep consistency</blockquote><div><br>Another yep= for the table fix, and major preference for Imperial as primary units of m= easure -- or indeed only units, (being old enough to have been in school --= if only just -- before the introduction of metric in NZ). <br><br>(But I have no objection to parenthetical SI units if young whipper= -snappers feel it useful). :-)<br><br>Cheers,<br>Martin<br></div><br></div>= <br> ------=_Part_30241_15877655.1134944011926-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX - Weather chart in Air college
From	Keith Smith
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 11:37:54 +1300
>Another yep for the table fix, and major preference for Imperial as >primary units of measure -- or indeed only units, (being old enough >to have been in school -- if only just -- before the introduction of >metric in NZ). > >(But I have no objection to parenthetical SI units if young >whipper-snappers feel it useful). :-) I may not be a young whipper-snapper any more but I'm more used to SI units - so yes please parenthesise them. Keith -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX - Weather chart in Air college
From	RPer 4eva
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 11:42:58 +1300
------=_Part_10582_20838836.1134945778567 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline SI are good for those of us who get asked to do all the maths. Dylan P.S. you should have seen the fun when we tried to work out how much the water we needed to carry for a month weighed P.P.S. After about 15 minutes of conversions and roundings the ice mage had an epiphany and told us he could summon ice. On 12/19/05, Keith Smith <phaeton@ihug.co.nz> wrote: > > > >Another yep for the table fix, and major preference for Imperial as > >primary units of measure -- or indeed only units, (being old enough > >to have been in school -- if only just -- before the introduction of > >metric in NZ). > > > >(But I have no objection to parenthetical SI units if young > >whipper-snappers feel it useful). :-) > > I may not be a young whipper-snapper any more but I'm more used to SI > units - so yes please parenthesise them. > > Keith > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > ------=_Part_10582_20838836.1134945778567 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline <div>SI are good for those of us who get asked to do all the maths.</div> <div> </div> <div>Dylan</div> <div> </div> <div>P.S. you should have seen the fun when we tried to work out how much t= he water we needed to carry for a month weighed</div> <div> </div> <div>P.P.S. After about 15 minutes of conversions and roundings the ice mag= e had an epiphany and told us he could summon ice.<br><br> </div> <div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 12/19/05, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername"= >Keith Smith</b> <<a href=3D"mailto:phaeton@ihug.co.nz">phaeton@ihug.co.= nz</a>> wrote:</span> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0= px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><br>>Another yep for the tabl= e fix, and major preference for Imperial as<br>>primary units of measure= -- or indeed only units, (being old enough <br>>to have been in school -- if only just -- before the introduction o= f<br>>metric in NZ).<br>><br>>(But I have no objection to parenthe= tical SI units if young<br>>whipper-snappers feel it useful). :-)<br> <br>I may not be a young whipper-snapper any more but I'm more used to SI<b= r>units - so yes please parenthesise them.<br><br>Keith<br><br><br>-- to un= subscribe notify mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">dq-reque= st@dq.sf.org.nz </a> --<br></blockquote></div><br> ------=_Part_10582_20838836.1134945778567-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX - Weather chart in Air college
From	Errol Cavit
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 11:46:58 +1300
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C60424.F3BFD22A Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" And guess who gets to convert the mm to factions of inches? Thanks Martin Cheers Errol -----Original Message----- From: Martin Dickson [mailto:martin.dickson@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, 19 December 2005 11:14 To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Subject: Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX - Weather chart in Air college On 12/19/05, Helen Saggers < helen@owbn.net.nz <mailto:helen@owbn.net.nz> > wrote: I'd also like go with both inches and mm we do every thing else in feet etc. lets at least try to keep consistency Another yep for the table fix, and major preference for Imperial as primary units of measure -- or indeed only units, (being old enough to have been in school -- if only just -- before the introduction of metric in NZ). (But I have no objection to parenthetical SI units if young whipper-snappers feel it useful). :-) Cheers, Martin ------_=_NextPart_001_01C60424.F3BFD22A Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><SPAN class=070384322-18122005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>And guess who gets to convert the mm to factions of inches?</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=070384322-18122005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=070384322-18122005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Thanks Martin</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=070384322-18122005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=070384322-18122005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Cheers</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=070384322-18122005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Errol</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid"> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Martin Dickson [mailto:martin.dickson@gmail.com]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, 19 December 2005 11:14<BR><B>To:</B> dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX - Weather chart in Air college<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>On 12/19/05, <B class=gmail_sendername>Helen Saggers</B> <<A href="mailto:helen@owbn.net.nz">helen@owbn.net.nz</A>> wrote: <DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote></SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">I'd also like go with both inches and mm we do every thing else in feet etc.<BR>lets at least try to keep consistency</BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><BR>Another yep for the table fix, and major preference for Imperial as primary units of measure -- or indeed only units, (being old enough to have been in school -- if only just -- before the introduction of metric in NZ). <BR><BR>(But I have no objection to parenthetical SI units if young whipper-snappers feel it useful). :-)<BR><BR>Cheers,<BR>Martin<BR></DIV><BR></DIV><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C60424.F3BFD22A-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX - Weather chart in Air college
From	Martin Dickson
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 12:03:38 +1300
------=_Part_30521_3215061.1134947018482 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 12/19/05, Errol Cavit <ecavit@tollnz.co.nz> wrote: > > And guess who gets to convert the mm to factions of inches? > A calculator? Some sort of SI > Imp applet? An Excel macro? OK, I give up, who? :-) Thanks Martin > Most welcome. (Though in fairness it was a group effort). :-) Cheers, Martin ------=_Part_30521_3215061.1134947018482 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 12/19/05, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">Errol Cavit</b> <<a href=3D"m= ailto:ecavit@tollnz.co.nz">ecavit@tollnz.co.nz</a>> wrote:<div><span cla= ss=3D"gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border= -left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-lef= t: 1ex;"> <div><span><font color=3D"#0000ff" face=3D"Arial" size=3D"2">And=20 guess who gets to convert the mm to factions of inches?</font></span></div>= </blockquote><div><br>A calculator?<br>Some sort of SI > Imp applet?<br>= An Excel macro?<br><br>OK, I give up, who?  :-) <br></div><br><blockqu= ote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204= ); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <div><span><font color=3D"#0000ff" face=3D"Arial" size=3D"2">Thanks=20 Martin</font></span></div></blockquote><div><br>Most welcome.  (Though= in fairness it was a group effort). :-)<br><br>Cheers,<br>Martin<br></div>= </div><br> ------=_Part_30521_3215061.1134947018482-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are wrong)
From	Stephen Martin
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 12:07:56 +1300 (NZDT)
Sorry, but I disagree. I foolishly didn't look into the proposed change. I assumed that it was broken as stated and the fix was simply clarifying the math. Using the Rk 10 TS H&1/2 example, the old formula expands as follows: Base Cost × (80% × (effective Rank + 1 + DM) + 180) 85 * (0.8 * (10 + 1 + 2) + 180) 85 * (0.8 * 13 + 180) 85 * (10.4 + 180) 85 * 190.4 16,184 sp The math could use clarification but it was fine. The wording depends a bit on how you define 'normal cost' and when you apply the cost of silvering. I think the intent is that weaponsmithing and silvering costs are calculated independently and added together. The only change required is to state Base Cost instead of Normal Cost and to remove the word base from the first line of the second paragraph. ----------------- 50.4 Silvering and Gilding weapons An item made of silvered metal costs 10 times the normal cost for the item made simply of cold iron. A gilded item will cost 120 times the normal cost for the item made of cold iron alone. Truesilver will cost 180 times the cost of the item made from cold iron alone. The cost of silvering or gilding is added to the base cost of the weaponsmithed item so that the cost of a silvered sword is Base Cost × (80% × (effective Rank + 1 + DM) + 10) silver pennies. ------------------- becomes ----------------- 50.4 Silvering and Gilding weapons An item made of silvered metal costs 10 times the base cost for the item made simply of cold iron. A gilded item will cost 120 times the base cost for the item made of cold iron alone. Truesilver will cost 180 times the base cost of the item made from cold iron alone. The cost of silvering or gilding is added to the cost of the weaponsmithed item so that the cost of a silvered sword is Base Cost × (80% × (effective Rank + 1 + DM) + 10) silver pennies. ------------------- The key difference from Terry's proposal is that he read Normal Cost as the cost after weapon smithing. The key difference from Errol's proposal is that he calculated the cost of silvering as a multiple of 80% of the base cost. Cheers, Stephen. PS. Irrelevant for this discussion but I think the cost of Gilding and Truesilvering is too high, it doesn't fit in with the way we value items. Either our valuations of mage friendly weapons should change or the cost of Gilding and TSing, I believe that only the second is achievable. Errol Cavit said: > Weaponsmith: > > Issue: The formula voted in for the cost to make silvered (and > gilded/true-silvered) weapons gives ridiculously high values where weapons are 'metalled' AND > weaponsmithed. > This is because the 'metalling' cost multiplier (x10, x120, or x180) is applied to the full > weaponsmithed cost to make - itself up to 13 times the cost of a Rk0 weapon. So a truesilvered > Rk10 Hand and a half with a +2 DM starts out at 68sp (85 list price at 80%). It is then > multiplied by 13 for the weaponsmithing (884sp), and multiplied again by 180, to give a cost of > 159,120sp. > > We didn't notice this until Struan brought it up last week because the example in the Rulebook > has a Rk0 weaponsmith skill applied to the weapon. > > I'm fairly sure we didn't intend to do this! > > Proposed solution: Clearly state the formula in words, get the OK from the list to include it in > the March 2006 Rulebook, and put a revised formula in, along with a good example. > > > So, the cost to make a cold iron weaponsmithed weapon is unchanged: 80% of the listed 'base > cost' times (rank + 1 + DM increase). If a weapon is silvered, gilded, or truesilvered, then add > a cost calculated by multiplying the weapon's 'base cost' by (10, 120, or 180), and applying > the standard 80% factor. > (actually 9, 119 or 179 to account for the 1x in the weaponsmith rank applied calculation) > > A Rk10 (+2 DM) truesilvered Hand and a half then comes out at 13,056sp > > 80% x 85 x (10[rk] + 1 + 2[DM] + 179) = 13,056 > > A Rk0 silvered dagger (the original example) is 80 > > 80% x 10 x (0 + 1 + 0 + 9) = 80 > > The exact wording and formula presentation can be improved. > > > What says the list? > I'll only go ahead with overwhelming approval. > > > Cheers > Errol > > PS Thanks to Struan for crunching the numbers > PPS Yes, I'm as tired of talking about this as most people > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of Struan Judd >> Sent: Tuesday, 13 December 2005 10:41 >> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz >> Subject: [dq] The Weaponsmith changes are wrong >> >> >> Plus additional armourer changes are required. >> >> First the Armourer changes: >> There is no mention of of how Silvering and Truesilvering adjusts the cost to the Armourer of >> the Armour they are making (or repairing). >> >> I have a memory of this being discussed and resolved to be that the silvering and >> truesilvering costs are added to the final calculated cost, ie. the formula is: >> 80% x Base Cost × (Effective Rank + 1) + (True)Silvering cost (if >> any) silver pennies. >> >> Thus for consistency the Weaponsmith change should be to bring the text in line with the >> equation not the other way round. >> >> My main reason is the innate value of the weapon: >> Using the old formula a Rk 10 +2 Dmg Dagger would cost: >> Normal - 104 sp, Silvered - 204 sp, Gilded - 1,304 sp and Truesilvered - 1,904 sp >> and a Rk 10 +2 dmg Hand and a half Sword would cost: >> Normal - 884 sp, Silvered - 1,734 sp, Gilded - 11,084 and Truesilvered - 16,184 sp >> >> whereas with the proposed new calculation: >> a Rk 10 +2 Dmg Dagger would cost: >> Normal - 104 sp, Silvered - 1040 sp, Gilded - 12,480 sp and >> Truesilvered - 18,720 sp >> and a Rk 10 +2 dmg Hand and a half Sword would cost: >> Normal - 884 sp, Silvered - 8840 sp, Gilded - 106,080 and Truesilvered - 159,120 sp >> >> Just far too much. >> >> I repeat: >> >> The Weaponsmith change should be to bring the text in line with the equation not the other way >> round. >> >> TTFN, Struan >> >> >> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- >> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are wrong)
From	Martin Dickson
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 12:34:14 +1300
------=_Part_30725_30762235.1134948854677 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 12/19/05, Stephen Martin <stephenm@castle.pointclark.net> wrote: > > Using the Rk 10 TS H&1/2 example, the old formula expands as follows: > Base Cost =D7 (80% =D7 (effective Rank + 1 + DM) + 180) > 85 * (0.8 * (10 + 1 + 2) + 180) > 85 * (0.8 * 13 + 180) > 85 * (10.4 + 180) > 85 * 190.4 > 16,184 sp For the numerically challenged then -- you are saying that the 80% does not and should not apply to the cost of the precious metals? My understanding (perhaps flawed) was that the point of the 80% was profit = / payment for work (realism of only a 25% markup aside). So a Rk 0 Dagger may be purchased for 10sp, but made for 10(0.8 1) =3D 8= sp, the 2sp difference being the Weaponsmith's take home pay (less taxes, etc). The price list shows Silvered weapons (for example) to be "cost x 10", such that a silvered Rk 0 Dagger would be 100sp. Is the Weaponsmith's profit still 2sp? A Rk 0 Truesilvered dagger sells for 1800sp. Is the Weaponsmith's profit still 2sp? Cheers, Martin ------=_Part_30725_30762235.1134948854677 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 12/19/05, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">Stephen Martin</b> <<a href= =3D"mailto:stephenm@castle.pointclark.net">stephenm@castle.pointclark.net</= a>> wrote:<div><span class=3D"gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class=3D"g= mail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt= 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Using the Rk 10 TS H&1/2 example, the old formula expands as follows:<b= r>Base Cost =D7 (80% =D7 (effective Rank + 1 + DM) + 180)<br>85 * (0.8 * (1= 0 + 1 + 2) + 180)<br>85 * (0.8 * 13 + 180)<br>85 * (10.4 + 180)<br>85 * 190= .4 <br>16,184 sp</blockquote><div><br>For the numerically challenged then -- y= ou are saying that the 80% does not and should not apply to the cost of the= precious metals?<br><br>My understanding (perhaps flawed) was that the poi= nt of the 80% was profit / payment for work (realism of only a 25% markup a= side). <br><br>So a Rk 0 Dagger may be purchased for 10sp, but made for 10(0.8 = 1) =3D 8sp, the 2sp difference being the Weaponsmith's take home pay (less = taxes, etc).<br><br>The price list shows Silvered weapons (for example) to = be "cost x 10", such that a silvered Rk 0 Dagger would be 100sp. = Is the Weaponsmith's profit still 2sp? <br><br>A Rk 0 Truesilvered dagger sells for 1800sp. Is the Weaponsmith's p= rofit still 2sp?<br><br>Cheers,<br>Martin<br></div></div><br> ------=_Part_30725_30762235.1134948854677-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are wrong)
From	Errol Cavit
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 12:41:41 +1300
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6042C.98A28E20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > -----Original Message----- > From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf = Of > Stephen Martin > Sent: Monday, 19 December 2005 12:08 > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are = wrong) >=20 >=20 > Sorry, but I disagree. >=20 > I foolishly didn't look into the proposed change. I assumed=20 > that it was broken as stated and the > fix was simply clarifying the math. >=20 > Using the Rk 10 TS H&1/2 example, the old formula expands as follows: > Base Cost =D7 (80% =D7 (effective Rank + 1 + DM) + 180) > 85 * (0.8 * (10 + 1 + 2) + 180) > 85 * (0.8 * 13 + 180) > 85 * (10.4 + 180) > 85 * 190.4 > 16,184 sp This doesn't give the weaponsmith the Truesilver at a discount - the = 80% isn't applied to the 180 factor. This is what Terry noticed in the Rk0 example. You're saying that the weaponsmith doesn't get a margin for procuring + storing the precious metal? Cheers Errol ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6042C.98A28E20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version = 5.5.2658.2"> <TITLE>RE: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are = wrong)</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <BR> <BR> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>> -----Original Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [<A = HREF=3D"mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</A>]O= n Behalf Of</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Stephen Martin</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Sent: Monday, 19 December 2005 12:08</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Subject: Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The = Weaponsmith changes are wrong)</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Sorry, but I disagree.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> I foolishly didn't look into the proposed = change.  I assumed </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> that it was broken as stated and the</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> fix was simply clarifying the math.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Using the Rk 10 TS H&1/2 example, the old = formula expands as follows:</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Base Cost =D7 (80% =D7 (effective Rank + 1 + = DM) + 180)</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> 85 * (0.8 * (10 + 1 + 2) + 180)</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> 85 * (0.8 * 13 + 180)</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> 85 * (10.4 + 180)</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> 85 * 190.4</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> 16,184 sp</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>This doesn't give the weaponsmith the Truesilver at a = discount - the 80% isn't applied to the 180 factor. This is what Terry = noticed in the Rk0 example.</FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>You're saying that the weaponsmith doesn't get a = margin for procuring + storing the precious metal?</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Cheers</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Errol</FONT> </P> </BODY> </HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6042C.98A28E20-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are wrong)
From	raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 12:58:03 +1300
Quoting Errol Cavit <ecavit@tollnz.co.nz>: Stephen said: > > Using the Rk 10 TS H&1/2 example, the old formula expands as follows: > > Base Cost × (80% × (effective Rank + 1 + DM) + 180) > > 85 * (0.8 * (10 + 1 + 2) + 180) > > 85 * (0.8 * 13 + 180) > > 85 * (10.4 + 180) > > 85 * 190.4 > > 16,184 sp Errol said: > This doesn't give the weaponsmith the Truesilver at a discount - the 80% > isn't applied to the 180 factor. This is what Terry noticed in the Rk0 > example. > > You're saying that the weaponsmith doesn't get a margin for procuring + > storing the precious metal? The amount of metal used in gilding is truly trivial. On the other hand, it is a truck load of work. It is not like the industrial process of the late 19th century. There's a lot of hand rolling that goes into that. Labour is time, time is money, and that's what people routinely make money out of...They sacrifice their time and get money. I don't think that the material costs are going to be that high. Mind you, I have no idea what Truesilver is like to work with. Silver and gold are reasonably ductile. Jim. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are wrong)
From	Stephen Martin
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 13:47:57 +1300 (NZDT)
> For the numerically challenged then -- you are saying that the 80% does not and should not apply > to the cost of the precious metals? Yes, it does not apply. Because that is what was in the rules and this change was presented as a clarification/fix not a change. As for how this works in game... Silvering/gilding/truesilvering does not increase the time of manufacture which makes no sense to me unless: - they are simply dipping the finished weapon into vat of molten precious metal which only takes a few minutes. - they buy ingots of weapon steel alloyed with silver/gold/TS from their local Dwarf whose time for blending them is factored into the cost as documented. I prefer the second option as the more believable rationalisation. I expect that the guild weaponsmith and some royal weaponsmiths may carry stock of gilded/truesilvered materials and a few more would carry materials for silvering but most get it in on demand. If we want to talk about how it SHOULD work, then as mentioned before I think that the costs of gilding/TSing should drop, silvering/gilding/TSing should add to the time as well as the cost, and the smith should make more money from it. But that is a change to how it works which should go through the normal process. It is not (IMO) a high priority issue. Cheers, Stephen. Martin Dickson said: > On 12/19/05, Stephen Martin <stephenm@castle.pointclark.net> wrote: >> >> Using the Rk 10 TS H&1/2 example, the old formula expands as follows: Base Cost × (80% × >> (effective Rank + 1 + DM) + 180) >> 85 * (0.8 * (10 + 1 + 2) + 180) >> 85 * (0.8 * 13 + 180) >> 85 * (10.4 + 180) >> 85 * 190.4 >> 16,184 sp > > > For the numerically challenged then -- you are saying that the 80% does not and should not apply > to the cost of the precious metals? > > My understanding (perhaps flawed) was that the point of the 80% was profit / payment for work > (realism of only a 25% markup aside). > > So a Rk 0 Dagger may be purchased for 10sp, but made for 10(0.8 1) = 8sp, the 2sp difference > being the Weaponsmith's take home pay (less taxes, etc). > > The price list shows Silvered weapons (for example) to be "cost x 10", such that a silvered Rk 0 > Dagger would be 100sp. Is the Weaponsmith's profit still 2sp? > > A Rk 0 Truesilvered dagger sells for 1800sp. Is the Weaponsmith's profit still 2sp? > > Cheers, > Martin -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX - Weather chart in Air college
From	Stephen Martin
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 14:00:13 +1300 (NZDT)
Agree: New table, imperial unit of measure, don't care about mm conversion as I generally use the textual descriptions. If conversion is a hassle and makes for an unpleasnt table then how about making the UOM 'drops' where a 'drop' is the standard unit for rainfall measurement. 25 and a half drops (or 25.4 according to pedantic philosophers) is equivalent to 1 inch per hour. Cheers, Stephen. Martin Dickson said: > On 12/19/05, Helen Saggers <helen@owbn.net.nz> wrote: >> >> I'd also like go with both inches and mm we do every thing else in feet etc. >> lets at least try to keep consistency > > > Another yep for the table fix, and major preference for Imperial as primary units of measure -- > or indeed only units, (being old enough to have been in school -- if only just -- before the > introduction of metric in NZ). > > (But I have no objection to parenthetical SI units if young whipper-snappers feel it useful). > :-) > > Cheers, > Martin -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are wrong)
From	Helen Saggers
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 14:26:10 +1300
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0143_01C604A8.28981470 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable working from the weapon smithing formula and the text gives 85 * 0.8 ( 10 +1 +2) 85 0.8 * (13) 68 * (13) 884 884 times 180 =3D 159,120 (a blooding silly number and not much help) The working for Errol's earlier post gives 13,056 Stephen's working 16,184 Personally I like Errol's as the weapon smith formula is maintained and = we are adding the weapon smithing factor to the silvering factor, not = modifying the weapon smithing factor by 0.8 which is what Stephen is = doing then adding the silvering factor un altered. The formula was in error/ unclear we voted to let Errol fix it, he is = trying to fix it to agree with the weapon smithing formula. The text says add to the weapon smithing cost not factor the weapon = smithing by 0.8 then add. Helen ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Stephen Martin" <stephenm@castle.pointclark.net> > Sorry, but I disagree. >=20 > I foolishly didn't look into the proposed change. I assumed that it = was broken as stated and the > fix was simply clarifying the math. >=20 > Using the Rk 10 TS H&1/2 example, the old formula expands as follows: > Base Cost =D7 (80% =D7 (effective Rank + 1 + DM) + 180) > 85 * (0.8 * (10 + 1 + 2) + 180) > 85 * (0.8 * 13 + 180) > 85 * (10.4 + 180) > 85 * 190.4 > 16,184 sp >=20 > The math could use clarification but it was fine. The wording depends = a bit on how you define > 'normal cost' and when you apply the cost of silvering. > I think the intent is that weaponsmithing and silvering costs are = calculated independently and > added together. The only change required is to state Base Cost = instead of Normal Cost and to > remove the word base from the first line of the second paragraph. >=20 > ----------------- > 50.4 Silvering and Gilding weapons > An item made of silvered metal costs 10 times the > normal cost for the item made simply of cold iron. A > gilded item will cost 120 times the normal cost for > the item made of cold iron alone. Truesilver will cost > 180 times the cost of the item made from cold iron > alone. > The cost of silvering or gilding is added to the base > cost of the weaponsmithed item so that the cost of > a silvered sword is Base Cost =D7 (80% =D7 (effective > Rank + 1 + DM) + 10) silver pennies. > ------------------- > becomes > ----------------- > 50.4 Silvering and Gilding weapons > An item made of silvered metal costs 10 times the > base cost for the item made simply of cold iron. A > gilded item will cost 120 times the base cost for > the item made of cold iron alone. Truesilver will cost > 180 times the base cost of the item made from cold iron > alone. > The cost of silvering or gilding is added to the > cost of the weaponsmithed item so that the cost of > a silvered sword is Base Cost =D7 (80% =D7 (effective > Rank + 1 + DM) + 10) silver pennies. > ------------------- >=20 > The key difference from Terry's proposal is that he read Normal Cost = as the cost after weapon > smithing. >=20 > The key difference from Errol's proposal is that he calculated the = cost of silvering as a multiple > of 80% of the base cost. >=20 > Cheers, Stephen. >=20 > PS. Irrelevant for this discussion but I think the cost of Gilding and = Truesilvering is too high, > it doesn't fit in with the way we value items. Either our valuations = of mage friendly weapons > should change or the cost of Gilding and TSing, I believe that only = the second is achievable. >=20 >=20 > Errol Cavit said: > > Weaponsmith: > > > > Issue: The formula voted in for the cost to make silvered (and > > gilded/true-silvered) weapons gives ridiculously high values where = weapons are 'metalled' AND > > weaponsmithed. > > This is because the 'metalling' cost multiplier (x10, x120, or x180) = is applied to the full > > weaponsmithed cost to make - itself up to 13 times the cost of a Rk0 = weapon. So a truesilvered > > Rk10 Hand and a half with a +2 DM starts out at 68sp (85 list price = at 80%). It is then > > multiplied by 13 for the weaponsmithing (884sp), and multiplied = again by 180, to give a cost of > > 159,120sp. > > > > We didn't notice this until Struan brought it up last week because = the example in the Rulebook > > has a Rk0 weaponsmith skill applied to the weapon. > > > > I'm fairly sure we didn't intend to do this! > > > > Proposed solution: Clearly state the formula in words, get the OK = from the list to include it in > > the March 2006 Rulebook, and put a revised formula in, along with a = good example. > > > > > > So, the cost to make a cold iron weaponsmithed weapon is unchanged: = 80% of the listed 'base > > cost' times (rank + 1 + DM increase). If a weapon is silvered, = gilded, or truesilvered, then add > > a cost calculated by multiplying the weapon's 'base cost' by (10, = 120, or 180), and applying > > the standard 80% factor. > > (actually 9, 119 or 179 to account for the 1x in the weaponsmith = rank applied calculation) > > > > A Rk10 (+2 DM) truesilvered Hand and a half then comes out at = 13,056sp > > > > 80% x 85 x (10[rk] + 1 + 2[DM] + 179) =3D 13,056 > > > > A Rk0 silvered dagger (the original example) is 80 > > > > 80% x 10 x (0 + 1 + 0 + 9) =3D 80 > > > > The exact wording and formula presentation can be improved. > > > > > > What says the list? > > I'll only go ahead with overwhelming approval. > > > > > > Cheers > > Errol > > > > PS Thanks to Struan for crunching the numbers > > PPS Yes, I'm as tired of talking about this as most people > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf = Of Struan Judd > >> Sent: Tuesday, 13 December 2005 10:41 > >> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > >> Subject: [dq] The Weaponsmith changes are wrong > >> > >> > >> Plus additional armourer changes are required. > >> > >> First the Armourer changes: > >> There is no mention of of how Silvering and Truesilvering adjusts = the cost to the Armourer of > >> the Armour they are making (or repairing). > >> > >> I have a memory of this being discussed and resolved to be that the = silvering and > >> truesilvering costs are added to the final calculated cost, ie. the = formula is: > >> 80% x Base Cost =D7 (Effective Rank + 1) + (True)Silvering cost = (if > >> any) silver pennies. > >> > >> Thus for consistency the Weaponsmith change should be to bring the = text in line with the > >> equation not the other way round. > >> > >> My main reason is the innate value of the weapon: > >> Using the old formula a Rk 10 +2 Dmg Dagger would cost: > >> Normal - 104 sp, Silvered - 204 sp, Gilded - 1,304 sp and = Truesilvered - 1,904 sp > >> and a Rk 10 +2 dmg Hand and a half Sword would cost: > >> Normal - 884 sp, Silvered - 1,734 sp, Gilded - 11,084 and = Truesilvered - 16,184 sp > >> > >> whereas with the proposed new calculation: > >> a Rk 10 +2 Dmg Dagger would cost: > >> Normal - 104 sp, Silvered - 1040 sp, Gilded - 12,480 sp and > >> Truesilvered - 18,720 sp > >> and a Rk 10 +2 dmg Hand and a half Sword would cost: > >> Normal - 884 sp, Silvered - 8840 sp, Gilded - 106,080 and = Truesilvered - 159,120 sp > >> > >> Just far too much. > >> > >> I repeat: > >> > >> The Weaponsmith change should be to bring the text in line with the = equation not the other way > >> round. > >> > >> TTFN, Struan > >> > >> > >> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > >> >=20 >=20 > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > ------=_NextPart_000_0143_01C604A8.28981470 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1528" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>working from the weapon = smithing=20 formula and the text gives</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>85 * 0.8 ( = 10 +1=20 +2)</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>85 0.8 * = (13)</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>68 * (13)</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>884</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>884 times 180 =3D = 159,120 (<FONT=20 color=3D#000000>a blooding silly number and not much = help)</FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>The working for = Errol's earlier=20 post gives 13,056</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>Stephen's working = 16,184</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>Personally I like = Errol's as the=20 weapon smith formula is maintained and we are adding the weapon = smithing=20 factor to the silvering factor, not modifying the weapon smithing = factor by=20 0.8 which is what Stephen is doing then adding the silvering factor un=20 altered</FONT><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>The formula was in = error/=20 unclear we voted to let Errol fix it, he is trying to fix it to = agree with=20 the weapon smithing formula.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>The text says add to = the weapon=20 smithing cost not factor the weapon smithing by  0.8 then = add.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>Helen</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>----- Original Message ----- = </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>From: "Stephen Martin" <</FONT><A=20 href=3D"mailto:stephenm@castle.pointclark.net"><FONT face=3DArial=20 size=3D2>stephenm@castle.pointclark.net</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial=20 size=3D2>></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV><FONT face=3DArial = size=3D2>>=20 Sorry, but I disagree.<BR>> <BR>> I foolishly didn't look into the = proposed change.  I assumed that it was broken as stated and = the<BR>>=20 fix was simply clarifying the math.<BR>> <BR>> Using the Rk 10 TS=20 H&1/2 example, the old formula expands as follows:<BR>> Base Cost = =D7 (80%=20 =D7 (effective Rank + 1 + DM) + 180)<BR>> 85 * (0.8 * (10 + 1 + 2) +=20 180)<BR>> 85 * (0.8 * 13 + 180)<BR>> 85 * (10.4 + 180)<BR>> 85 = =20 190.4<BR>> 16,184 sp<BR>> <BR>> The math could use = clarification but it=20 was fine.  The wording depends a bit on how you define<BR>> = 'normal=20 cost' and when you apply the cost of silvering.<BR>> I think the = intent is=20 that weaponsmithing and silvering costs are calculated independently = and<BR>>=20 added together.  The only change required is to state Base Cost = instead of=20 Normal Cost and to<BR>> remove the word base from the first line of = the=20 second paragraph.<BR>> <BR>> -----------------<BR>> 50.4 = Silvering and=20 Gilding weapons<BR>> An item made of silvered metal costs 10 times=20 the<BR>> normal cost for the item made simply of cold iron. A<BR>> = gilded=20 item will cost 120 times the normal cost for<BR>> the item made of = cold iron=20 alone. Truesilver will cost<BR>> 180 times the cost of the item made = from=20 cold iron<BR>> alone.<BR>> The cost of silvering or gilding is = added to=20 the base<BR>> cost of the weaponsmithed item so that the cost = of<BR>> a=20 silvered sword is Base Cost =D7 (80% =D7 (effective<BR>> Rank + 1 + = DM) + 10)=20 silver pennies.<BR>> -------------------<BR>> becomes<BR>>=20 -----------------<BR>> 50.4 Silvering and Gilding weapons<BR>> An = item=20 made of silvered metal costs 10 times the<BR>> base cost for the item = made=20 simply of cold iron. A<BR>> gilded item will cost 120 times the base = cost=20 for<BR>> the item made of cold iron alone. Truesilver will = cost<BR>> 180=20 times the base cost of the item made from cold iron<BR>> = alone.<BR>> The=20 cost of silvering or gilding is added to the<BR>> cost of the = weaponsmithed=20 item so that the cost of<BR>> a silvered sword is Base Cost =D7 (80% = =D7=20 (effective<BR>> Rank + 1 + DM) + 10) silver pennies.<BR>>=20 -------------------<BR>> <BR>> The key difference from Terry's = proposal is=20 that he read Normal Cost as the cost after weapon<BR>> = smithing.<BR>>=20 <BR>> The key difference from Errol's proposal is that he calculated = the cost=20 of silvering as a multiple<BR>> of 80% of the base cost.<BR>> = <BR>>=20 Cheers, Stephen.<BR>> <BR>> PS. Irrelevant for this discussion but = I think=20 the cost of Gilding and Truesilvering is too high,<BR>> it doesn't = fit in=20 with the way we value items.  Either our valuations of mage = friendly=20 weapons<BR>> should change or the cost of Gilding and TSing, I = believe that=20 only the second is achievable.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Errol Cavit=20 said:<BR>> > Weaponsmith:<BR>> ><BR>> > Issue: The = formula=20 voted in for the cost to make silvered (and<BR>> > = gilded/true-silvered)=20 weapons gives ridiculously high values where weapons are 'metalled' = AND<BR>>=20 > weaponsmithed.<BR>> > This is because the 'metalling' cost = multiplier=20 (x10, x120, or x180) is applied to the full<BR>> > weaponsmithed = cost to=20 make - itself up to 13 times the cost of a Rk0 weapon. So a = truesilvered<BR>>=20 > Rk10 Hand and a half with a +2 DM starts out at 68sp (85 list price = at=20 80%). It is then<BR>> > multiplied by 13 for the weaponsmithing = (884sp),=20 and multiplied again by 180, to give a cost of<BR>> > = 159,120sp.<BR>>=20 ><BR>> > We didn't notice this until Struan brought it up last = week=20 because the example in the Rulebook<BR>> > has a Rk0 weaponsmith = skill=20 applied to the weapon.<BR>> ><BR>> > I'm fairly sure we = didn't=20 intend to do this!<BR>> ><BR>> > Proposed solution: Clearly = state=20 the formula in words, get the OK from the list to include it in<BR>> = > the=20 March 2006 Rulebook, and put a revised formula in, along with a good=20 example.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > So, the cost to make a = cold iron=20 weaponsmithed weapon is unchanged: 80% of the listed 'base<BR>> > = cost'=20 times (rank + 1 + DM increase). If a weapon is silvered, gilded, or=20 truesilvered, then add<BR>> > a cost calculated by multiplying the = weapon's 'base cost' by (10, 120, or 180), and applying<BR>> > = the=20 standard 80% factor.<BR>> > *(actually 9, 119 or 179 to account = for the 1x=20 in the weaponsmith rank applied calculation)<BR>> ><BR>> > A = Rk10=20 (+2 DM) truesilvered Hand and a half then comes out at 13,056sp<BR>>=20 ><BR>> > 80% x 85 x (10[rk] + 1 + 2[DM] + 179) =3D = 13,056<BR>>=20 ><BR>> > A Rk0 silvered dagger (the original example) is = 80<BR>>=20 ><BR>> > 80% x 10 x (0 + 1 + 0 + 9) =3D 80<BR>> ><BR>> = > The=20 exact wording and formula presentation can be improved.<BR>> = ><BR>>=20 ><BR>> > What says the list?<BR>> > I'll only go ahead = with=20 overwhelming approval.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > = Cheers<BR>>=20 > Errol<BR>> ><BR>> > PS Thanks to Struan for crunching = the=20 numbers<BR>> > PPS Yes, I'm as tired of talking about this as most = people<BR>> ><BR>> >> -----Original Message-----<BR>> = >>=20 From: </FONT><A href=3D"mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz"><FONT face=3DArial = size=3D2>dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>=20 [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of Struan Judd<BR>> >> = Sent:=20 Tuesday, 13 December 2005 10:41<BR>> >> To: </FONT><A=20 href=3D"mailto:dq@dq.sf.org.nz"><FONT face=3DArial=20 size=3D2>dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>> = >>=20 Subject: [dq] The Weaponsmith changes are wrong<BR>> >><BR>> = >><BR>> >> Plus additional armourer changes are = required.<BR>>=20 >><BR>> >> First the Armourer changes:<BR>> >> = There is=20 no mention of of how Silvering and Truesilvering adjusts the cost to the = Armourer of<BR>> >> the Armour they are making (or = repairing).<BR>>=20 >><BR>> >> I have a memory of this being discussed and = resolved=20 to be that the silvering and<BR>> >> truesilvering costs are = added to=20 the final calculated cost, ie. the formula is:<BR>> = >>   80%=20 x Base Cost =D7 (Effective Rank + 1) + (True)Silvering cost (if<BR>> = >>=20 any) silver pennies.<BR>> >><BR>> >> Thus for = consistency the=20 Weaponsmith change should be to bring the text in line with the<BR>> = >>=20 equation not the other way round.<BR>> >><BR>> >> My = main=20 reason is the innate value of the weapon:<BR>> >> Using the old = formula=20 a Rk 10 +2 Dmg Dagger would cost:<BR>> >> Normal - 104 sp, = Silvered -=20 204 sp, Gilded - 1,304 sp and Truesilvered - 1,904 sp<BR>> >> = and a Rk=20 10 +2 dmg Hand and a half Sword would cost:<BR>> >> Normal - = 884 sp,=20 Silvered - 1,734 sp, Gilded - 11,084 and Truesilvered - 16,184 = sp<BR>>=20 >><BR>> >> whereas with the proposed new = calculation:<BR>>=20 >> a Rk 10 +2 Dmg Dagger would cost:<BR>> >> Normal - 104 = sp,=20 Silvered - 1040 sp, Gilded - 12,480 sp and<BR>> >> Truesilvered = -=20 18,720 sp<BR>> >> and a Rk 10 +2 dmg Hand and a half Sword = would=20 cost:<BR>> >> Normal - 884 sp, Silvered - 8840 sp, Gilded - = 106,080 and=20 Truesilvered - 159,120 sp<BR>> >><BR>> >> Just far too = much.<BR>> >><BR>> >> I repeat:<BR>> = >><BR>>=20 >> The Weaponsmith change should be to bring the text in line with = the=20 equation not the other way<BR>> >> round.<BR>> = >><BR>>=20 >> TTFN, Struan<BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >> = -- to=20 unsubscribe notify </FONT><A = href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz"><FONT=20 face=3DArial size=3D2>mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT></A><FONT = face=3DArial=20 size=3D2> --<BR>> >><BR>> <BR>> <BR>> -- to = unsubscribe notify=20 </FONT><A href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz"><FONT face=3DArial=20 size=3D2>mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial = size=3D2>=20 --<BR>> </FONT></BODY></HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_0143_01C604A8.28981470-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are wrong)
From	Martin Dickson
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 14:30:16 +1300
------=_Part_31234_28199310.1134955816399 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 12/19/05, Stephen Martin <stephenm@castle.pointclark.net> wrote: > > Sorry, but I disagree. > ... > The math could use clarification but it was fine. Whether or not the Weaponsmith gets a discount on the precious metals aside= , the maths is still off in the formula as has been noted previously -- the silvering +10 should be a +9 if the final item is going to work out at 10x iron price (else it'll end up at 11x iron). It is odd that it takes no longer to silver, etc a weapon -- but that is outside this discussion. What is within the scope of the discussion is wher= e the precious metal discount gets applied, and the difference between Errol'= s calculation and Stephen's is around 3,000sp extra money for the Weaponsmith from the same amount of work. Cheers, Martin ------=_Part_31234_28199310.1134955816399 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 12/19/05, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">Stephen Martin</b> <<a href= =3D"mailto:stephenm@castle.pointclark.net">stephenm@castle.pointclark.net</= a>> wrote:<div><span class=3D"gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class=3D"g= mail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt= 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Sorry, but I disagree.<br>...<br>The math could use clarification but it wa= s fine. </blockquote><div><br>Whether or not the Weaponsmith gets a di= scount on the precious metals aside, the maths is still off in the formula = as has been noted previously -- the silvering +10 should be a +9 if the fin= al item is going to work out at 10x iron price (else it'll end up at 11x ir= on). <br><br>It is odd that it takes no longer to silver, etc a weapon -- but th= at is outside this discussion. What is within the scope of the discussion i= s where the precious metal discount gets applied, and the difference betwee= n Errol's calculation and Stephen's is around 3,000sp extra money for the W= eaponsmith from the same amount of work. <br><br>Cheers,<br>Martin<br></div></div><br> ------=_Part_31234_28199310.1134955816399-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX - Weather chart in Air college
From	Martin Dickson
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 14:37:58 +1300
------=_Part_31294_8878312.1134956278712 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 12/19/05, Stephen Martin <stephenm@castle.pointclark.net> wrote: > > If conversion is a hassle and makes for an unpleasnt table then how about > making the UOM 'drops' > where a 'drop' is the standard unit for rainfall measurement. 25 and a > half drops (or 25.4 > according to pedantic philosophers) is equivalent to 1 inch per hour. Inches are traditionally subdivided into 3 barleycorns (not perhaps so much use here) and also into 12 lines... making 1mm approx 1/2 a line... :-) - Martin ------=_Part_31294_8878312.1134956278712 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 12/19/05, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">Stephen Martin</b> <<a href= =3D"mailto:stephenm@castle.pointclark.net">stephenm@castle.pointclark.net</= a>> wrote:<div><span class=3D"gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class=3D"g= mail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt= 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> If conversion is a hassle and makes for an unpleasnt table then how about m= aking the UOM 'drops'<br>where a 'drop' is the standard unit for rainfall m= easurement.  25 and a half drops (or 25.4<br>according to pedanti= c philosophers) is equivalent to 1 inch per hour. </blockquote><div><br>Inches are traditionally subdivided into 3 barleycorn= s (not perhaps so much use here) and also into 12 lines... making 1mm appro= x 1/2 a line...   :-)<br><br>- Martin<br></div><br></div><br> ------=_Part_31294_8878312.1134956278712-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are wrong)
From	Errol Cavit
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 14:41:44 +1300
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6043D.5DFEAB08 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Martin [mailto:stephenm@castle.pointclark.net] > Sent: Monday, 19 December 2005 13:48 > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are = wrong) >=20 >=20 > > For the numerically challenged then -- you are saying that=20 > the 80% does not and should not apply > > to the cost of the precious metals? >=20 > Yes, it does not apply. >=20 > Because that is what was in the rules and this change was=20 > presented as a clarification/fix not a > change. I believe either interpretation of the text (80% applied to metal cost (price), or not) is supportable (logical is another issue) - the terms = used are not well or consistently defined. The example approved specifically stated that the cost to make a = silvered rank0 dagger be 10x the cost of a cold iron rank0 dagger. The approved formula achieves this (and maintains this ratio for rank0 all weapons). Unfortunately the approved formula gives silly results when silvering = etc weaponsmithed weapons. This is not obvious from the (rank0) example = given. The Rulebook 2004 version of the formula does not give the result in = the approved example. I believe that the approved example is the best = indicator of the group's intention. This is why I prefer the version I gave (80% applied to metal price). The profit %age issue referred to by Martin reinforces this IMO. The 2004 version is however preferable to the formula explicitly = approved. I await further comment. Errol >=20 >=20 > As for how this works in game... > Silvering/gilding/truesilvering does not increase the time of=20 > manufacture which makes no sense to > me unless: > - they are simply dipping the finished weapon into vat of=20 > molten precious metal which only takes a > few minutes. > - they buy ingots of weapon steel alloyed with silver/gold/TS=20 > from their local Dwarf whose time > for blending them is factored into the cost as documented. >=20 > I prefer the second option as the more believable rationalisation. >=20 > I expect that the guild weaponsmith and some royal=20 > weaponsmiths may carry stock of > gilded/truesilvered materials and a few more would carry=20 > materials for silvering but most get it > in on demand. >=20 >=20 > If we want to talk about how it SHOULD work, then as=20 > mentioned before I think that the costs of > gilding/TSing should drop, silvering/gilding/TSing should add=20 > to the time as well as the cost, and > the smith should make more money from it. > But that is a change to how it works which should go through=20 > the normal process. It is not (IMO) > a high priority issue. >=20 > Cheers, Stephen. >=20 >=20 > Martin Dickson said: > > On 12/19/05, Stephen Martin <stephenm@castle.pointclark.net> wrote: > >> > >> Using the Rk 10 TS H&1/2 example, the old formula expands=20 > as follows: Base Cost =D7 (80% =D7 > >> (effective Rank + 1 + DM) + 180) > >> 85 * (0.8 * (10 + 1 + 2) + 180) > >> 85 * (0.8 * 13 + 180) > >> 85 * (10.4 + 180) > >> 85 * 190.4 > >> 16,184 sp > > > > > > For the numerically challenged then -- you are saying that=20 > the 80% does not and should not apply > > to the cost of the precious metals? > > > > My understanding (perhaps flawed) was that the point of the=20 > 80% was profit / payment for work > > (realism of only a 25% markup aside). > > > > So a Rk 0 Dagger may be purchased for 10sp, but made for=20 > 10(0.8 1) =3D 8sp, the 2sp difference > > being the Weaponsmith's take home pay (less taxes, etc). > > > > The price list shows Silvered weapons (for example) to be=20 > "cost x 10", such that a silvered Rk 0 > > Dagger would be 100sp. Is the Weaponsmith's profit still 2sp? > > > > A Rk 0 Truesilvered dagger sells for 1800sp. Is the=20 > Weaponsmith's profit still 2sp? > > > > Cheers, > > Martin >=20 >=20 > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- >=20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6043D.5DFEAB08 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version = 5.5.2658.2"> <TITLE>RE: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are = wrong)</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>> -----Original Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> From: Stephen Martin [<A = HREF=3D"mailto:stephenm@castle.pointclark.net">mailto:stephenm@castle.po= intclark.net</A>]</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Sent: Monday, 19 December 2005 13:48</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Subject: Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The = Weaponsmith changes are wrong)</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > For the numerically challenged then -- you = are saying that </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> the 80% does not and should not apply</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > to the cost of the precious metals?</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Yes, it does not apply.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Because that is what was in the rules and this = change was </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> presented as a clarification/fix not a</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> change.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I believe either interpretation of the text (80% = applied to metal cost (price), or not) is supportable (logical is = another issue) - the terms used are not well or consistently = defined.</FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>The example approved specifically stated that the = cost to make a silvered rank0 dagger be 10x the cost of a cold iron = rank0 dagger. The approved formula achieves this (and maintains this = ratio for rank0 all weapons). Unfortunately the approved formula gives = silly results when silvering etc weaponsmithed weapons. This is not = obvious from the (rank0) example given.</FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>The Rulebook 2004 version of the formula does not = give the result in the approved example. I believe that the approved = example is the best indicator of the group's intention. This is why I = prefer the version I gave (80% applied to metal price). The profit %age = issue referred to by Martin reinforces this IMO.</FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>The 2004 version is however preferable to the formula = explicitly approved.</FONT> </P> <BR> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I await further comment.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Errol</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> As for how this works in game...</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Silvering/gilding/truesilvering does not = increase the time of </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> manufacture which makes no sense to</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> me unless:</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> - they are simply dipping the finished weapon = into vat of </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> molten precious metal which only takes a</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> few minutes.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> - they buy ingots of weapon steel alloyed with = silver/gold/TS </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> from their local Dwarf whose time</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> for blending them is factored into the cost as = documented.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> I prefer the second option as the more = believable rationalisation.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> I expect that the guild weaponsmith and some = royal </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> weaponsmiths may carry stock of</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> gilded/truesilvered materials and a few more = would carry </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> materials for silvering but most get it</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> in on demand.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> If we want to talk about how it SHOULD work, = then as </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> mentioned before I think that the costs = of</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> gilding/TSing should drop, = silvering/gilding/TSing should add </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> to the time as well as the cost, and</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> the smith should make more money from = it.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> But that is a change to how it works which = should go through </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> the normal process.  It is not = (IMO)</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> a high priority issue.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Cheers, Stephen.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Martin Dickson said:</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > On 12/19/05, Stephen Martin = <stephenm@castle.pointclark.net> wrote:</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >> Using the Rk 10 TS H&1/2 example, = the old formula expands </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> as follows: Base Cost =D7 (80% =D7</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >> (effective Rank + 1 + DM) + = 180)</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >> 85 * (0.8 * (10 + 1 + 2) + 180)</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >> 85 * (0.8 * 13 + 180)</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >> 85 * (10.4 + 180)</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >> 85 * 190.4</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >> 16,184 sp</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > For the numerically challenged then -- you = are saying that </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> the 80% does not and should not apply</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > to the cost of the precious metals?</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > My understanding (perhaps flawed) was that = the point of the </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> 80% was profit / payment for work</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > (realism of only a 25% markup = aside).</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > So a Rk 0 Dagger may be purchased for = 10sp, but made for </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> 10(0.8 1) =3D 8sp, the 2sp difference</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > being the Weaponsmith's take home pay = (less taxes, etc).</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > The price list shows Silvered weapons (for = example) to be </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> "cost x 10", such that a silvered Rk = 0</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > Dagger would be 100sp. Is the = Weaponsmith's profit still 2sp?</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > A Rk 0 Truesilvered dagger sells for = 1800sp. Is the </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Weaponsmith's profit still 2sp?</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > Cheers,</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > Martin</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> -- to unsubscribe notify <A = HREF=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</= A> --</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> </P> </BODY> </HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6043D.5DFEAB08-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are wrong)
From	raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 14:45:23 +1300
Quoting Errol Cavit <ecavit@tollnz.co.nz>: > I await further comment. > What, you mean from behind bushes, with an enormous mallet in your hand? I think I'll just agree with you, Errol. Jim. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are wrong)
From	Martin Dickson
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 14:46:38 +1300
------=_Part_31334_3552758.1134956798423 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 12/19/05, Errol Cavit <ecavit@tollnz.co.nz> wrote: > > The profit %age issue referred to by Martin reinforces this IMO. > Just to note -- I don't think the proft numbers specifically support either interpretation -- I brought it up only to understand Stephen's interpretation. On the one hand it can seem rather silly that a Weaponsmith make only tuppence off a Rk 0 Truesilvered dagger worth 1800sp, but on the other hand it only took the same amount of time for them to make as plain Iron. Cheers, Martin ------=_Part_31334_3552758.1134956798423 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 12/19/05, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">Errol Cavit</b> <<a href=3D"m= ailto:ecavit@tollnz.co.nz">ecavit@tollnz.co.nz</a>> wrote:<div><span cla= ss=3D"gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border= -left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-lef= t: 1ex;"> <p><font size=3D"2">The profit %age issue referred to by Martin reinforces = this IMO.</font></p></blockquote><div>Just to note -- I don't think the pro= ft numbers specifically support either interpretation -- I brought it up on= ly to understand Stephen's interpretation. <br><br>On the one hand it can seem rather silly that a Weaponsmith make on= ly tuppence off a Rk 0 Truesilvered dagger worth 1800sp, but on the other h= and it only took the same amount of time for them to make as plain Iron. <br><br>Cheers,<br>Martin<br></div></div><br> ------=_Part_31334_3552758.1134956798423-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are wrong)
From	Errol Cavit
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:08:05 +1300
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C60441.0C771E1A Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" -----Original Message----- From: Martin Dickson [mailto:martin.dickson@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, 19 December 2005 14:47 To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Subject: Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are wrong) On 12/19/05, Errol Cavit < ecavit@tollnz.co.nz <mailto:ecavit@tollnz.co.nz> > wrote: The profit %age issue referred to by Martin reinforces this IMO. Just to note -- I don't think the proft numbers specifically support either interpretation -- I brought it up only to understand Stephen's interpretation. On the one hand it can seem rather silly that a Weaponsmith make only tuppence off a Rk 0 Truesilvered dagger worth 1800sp, but on the other hand it only took the same amount of time for them to make as plain Iron. Fair comment. My belief (which may of course differ from the group's), is that economics will give the weaponsmith at least the same mark-up on the high-value low-turnover item as the mid-value mid-turnover item. The construction time being the same is a side issue outside this (see Dec 2003 emails for a discussion of the problems resolving time and price issues). As we are given the retail price, the only thing we can vary is the cost. Cheers Errol ------_=_NextPart_001_01C60441.0C771E1A Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1226" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid"> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Martin Dickson [mailto:martin.dickson@gmail.com]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, 19 December 2005 14:47<BR><B>To:</B> dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are wrong)<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>On 12/19/05, <B class=gmail_sendername>Errol Cavit</B> <<A href="mailto:ecavit@tollnz.co.nz">ecavit@tollnz.co.nz</A>> wrote: <DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote></SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid"> <P><FONT size=2>The profit %age issue referred to by Martin reinforces this IMO.</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Just to note -- I don't think the proft numbers specifically support either interpretation -- I brought it up only to understand Stephen's interpretation. <BR><BR>On the one hand it can seem rather silly that a Weaponsmith make only tuppence off a Rk 0 Truesilvered dagger worth 1800sp, but on the other hand it only took the same amount of time for them to make as plain Iron. <BR><BR><SPAN class=41335201-19122005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2> </FONT></SPAN></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><SPAN class=41335201-19122005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Fair comment. My belief (which may of course differ from the group's), is that economics will give the weaponsmith at least the same mark-up on the high-value low-turnover</FONT> <FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>item as the mid-value mid-turnover item. The construction time being the same is a side issue outside this (see Dec 2003 emails for a discussion of the problems resolving time and price issues). As we are given the retail price, the only thing we can vary is the cost.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=41335201-19122005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=41335201-19122005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Cheers</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=41335201-19122005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Errol</FONT></SPAN></DIV></BODY></HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C60441.0C771E1A-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are dull)
From	Mandos Mitchinson
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:12:01 +1300
> On the one hand it can seem rather silly that a Weaponsmith make only tuppence > off a Rk 0 Truesilvered dagger worth 1800sp, but on the other hand it only took > the same amount of time for them to make as plain Iron. Just as a small point. (And I do recognise the hypocrasy of me suggesting there are too many pointless Emails). But surely the function of this is cost for weapons that players buy. 99% of the time this is going to be from a random weaponsmith and not from another player so who cares what the margin is as long as the numbers produce a range that is appropriate for the weapon. This appears to be a lot of discussion over a tiny and virtually unused rule. Mandos /s -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX - Weather chart in Air college
From	Andrew\ Withy\ \(DSL\ AK\)
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:12:37 +1300
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C60441.AE883D33 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Converting most entries (0 to 5 mm per hour) to inches will give tiny or silly fractions. Only storm conditions will have a number > 1/4 inch per hour. =20 There is flavour, and then playability. The terms "shower", "rain, "torrential", etc can be used by characters, and the mm/hour figure used by GMs to help any required water table calculations. =20 Which reminds me - why do we need these figures at all? =20 Andrew -----Original Message----- From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of Martin Dickson Sent: Monday, 19 December 2005 2:38 p.m. To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Subject: Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX - Weather chart in Air college =09 =09 On 12/19/05, Stephen Martin <stephenm@castle.pointclark.net> wrote:=20 =09 If conversion is a hassle and makes for an unpleasnt table then how about making the UOM 'drops' where a 'drop' is the standard unit for rainfall measurement. 25 and a half drops (or 25.4 according to pedantic philosophers) is equivalent to 1 inch per hour.=20 Inches are traditionally subdivided into 3 barleycorns (not perhaps so much use here) and also into 12 lines... making 1mm approx 1/2 a line... :-) =09 - Martin =09 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C60441.AE883D33 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Message</TITLE> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Dus-ascii"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1522" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><SPAN class=3D544110902-19122005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff = size=3D2>Converting most entries (0 to 5 mm per hour) to inches = will give=20 tiny or silly fractions. Only storm conditions will have a number > = 1/4=20 inch per hour.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D544110902-19122005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff = size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D544110902-19122005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff = size=3D2>There=20 is flavour, and then playability. The terms "shower", "rain, = "torrential", etc=20 can be used by characters, and the mm/hour figure used by GMs to help = any=20 required water table calculations.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D544110902-19122005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff = size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D544110902-19122005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff = size=3D2>Which=20 reminds me - why do we need these figures at all?</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D544110902-19122005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff = size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D544110902-19122005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff = size=3D2>Andrew</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV></DIV> <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader lang=3Den-us dir=3Dltr = align=3Dleft><FONT=20 face=3DTahoma size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>=20 dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] <B>On Behalf Of=20 </B>Martin Dickson<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, 19 December 2005 2:38=20 p.m.<BR><B>To:</B> dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [dq] = RULEBOOK FIX -=20 Weather chart in Air college<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>On 12/19/05, <B=20 class=3Dgmail_sendername>Stephen Martin</B> <<A=20 = href=3D"mailto:stephenm@castle.pointclark.net">stephenm@castle.pointclark= .net</A>>=20 wrote: <DIV><SPAN class=3Dgmail_quote></SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE class=3Dgmail_quote=20 style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: = rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">If=20 conversion is a hassle and makes for an unpleasnt table then how = about=20 making the UOM 'drops'<BR>where a 'drop' is the standard unit for = rainfall=20 measurement.  25 and a half drops (or 25.4<BR>according to = pedantic philosophers) is equivalent to 1 inch per hour. = </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><BR>Inches are traditionally subdivided into 3 barleycorns (not = perhaps=20 so much use here) and also into 12 lines... making 1mm approx 1/2 a=20 line...   :-)<BR><BR>-=20 Martin<BR></DIV><BR></DIV><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> =00 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C60441.AE883D33-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are dull)
From	raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:19:24 +1300
Quoting Mandos Mitchinson <MandosM@adhb.govt.nz>: > But surely the function of this is cost for weapons that players buy. > 99% of the time this is going to be from a random weaponsmith and not > from another player so who cares what the margin is as long as the > numbers produce a range that is appropriate for the weapon. > > This appears to be a lot of discussion over a tiny and virtually unused > rule. Well, yes, but 1) It's harmless and may do some good. 2) The first thing that developers of MUDs say is that they wished that they had got the economy right first time, because it was much harder to change after the game went live. And, it was economy that lay at the root of problems with Enchantment for so many years until we have this MUCH more sensible version. Jim. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Master works
From	Michael Parkinson
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:52:34 +1300
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C60447.4361B3AE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable list is way incomplete -- I know cos I spent ages completing & = forwarding the form for SF (& a little for Hagan) & it's not there -- = and that computer has long since crashed so I doubt I have a copy. Any = interest in doing an updated one to be maintinaed on the wiki? -----Original Message----- From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of = RPer 4eva Sent: Sunday, 18 December 2005 11:10 a.m. To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Subject: Re: [dq] Master works http://dq.sf.org.nz/library/Rank8plus.pdf =20 Just found it after ages on Google. =20 Dylan =20 On 12/18/05, Jonathan Bean - TME < Jonathan@tme.co.nz> wrote:=20 Can someone point me at the list of master works for rank 8+ please. Thanks Jonathan Bean -- to unsubscribe notify mailto: dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C60447.4361B3AE Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1528" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><SPAN class=3D053254902-19122005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff = size=3D2>list=20 is way incomplete -- I know cos I spent ages completing & = forwarding=20 the form for SF (& a little for Hagan) & it's not there -- = and that=20 computer has long since crashed so I doubt I have a copy.  Any = interest in=20 doing an updated one to be maintinaed on the wiki?</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE=20 style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px = solid"> <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT = face=3DTahoma=20 size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> = dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz=20 [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]<B>On Behalf Of </B>RPer = 4eva<BR><B>Sent:</B>=20 Sunday, 18 December 2005 11:10 a.m.<BR><B>To:</B>=20 dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [dq] Master = works<BR><BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV><A=20 = href=3D"http://dq.sf.org.nz/library/Rank8plus.pdf">http://dq.sf.org.nz/li= brary/Rank8plus.pdf</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Just found it after ages on Google.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Dylan<BR><BR> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3Dgmail_quote>On 12/18/05, <B = class=3Dgmail_sendername>Jonathan=20 Bean - TME</B> <<A=20 href=3D"mailto:Jonathan@tme.co.nz">Jonathan@tme.co.nz</A>> = wrote:</SPAN>=20 <BLOCKQUOTE class=3Dgmail_quote=20 style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: = #ccc 1px solid">Can=20 someone point me at the list of master works for rank 8+=20 please.<BR><BR>Thanks<BR><BR>Jonathan Bean<BR><BR><BR>-- to = unsubscribe=20 notify mailto:<A=20 href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</A>=20 --<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C60447.4361B3AE-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are wrong)
From	Michael Parkinson
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 16:30:27 +1300
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6044C.8E0B88F5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear ALL,=20 =20 apologies for repeating part of an old post, but =20 The existing rules are WRONG. And it is important because the party's = loot is based on the item's worth -- or, in the case of invested etc, = its COST. It is also relevant for one of my characters who is = constantly being asked to make armour/weapons for other guild members = ... and is happy to do it since he only goes out once every 4 or 5 = sessions. =20 We need a simple-ish factor or formula. Also, the maximum valuation of = a shaped item is 50k; therefore a silvered set of armour, should be less = than that if it is just a matter of real metal weight & real cost of = production. Anything else is stupid.=20 Basing the silvering cost on a multiplier added to the base cost of the = weapon is absurd -- since the time to make any weapon of the same rank = is identicial, regardless of the weapon. *You MAY want to change this = rule* =20 An armourer doesn't turn a heavy chest of silver into a smaller weight = of valuable metal -- that's alchemy. Now as GMs we can decide on any = set of numbers, here is a rationale for some EASY figures. Given that = Silver has vital importance in the DQ world of werewolves and magic, it = is reasonable to assume that there are reasons why coinage is = sufficiently pure to be of "use." At the MOST extreme the silver content = of the armour should be the equivalent of the silver content of the = money. If, for example, the weapon or armour has to be about 29% PURE = silver and that money is Stirling standard (92.5% pure silver) means = that the silver required is 100sp per pound -- very easy to add to the = costs. Real Costs.=20 The cost of a weapon/ armour should be [cost of material] plus [time = taken] x [cost of that maker's time] =20 -----Original Message----- From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of = Helen Saggers Sent: Monday, 19 December 2005 8:45 a.m. To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Subject: Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are wrong) rather than use 179 or 9 or 119 in the formulas might not it be better = to replace the 1 with the whole 180 or which ever. =20 So a cold iron weapon is 80% base cost x(10(rk)+1+2(dm)) And a true silvered one is 80%base cost x(10(rk) +180+ 2(dm)) =20 Call the 1 10 120 or 180 metal type or some such where 1 is for cold = iron. =20 Helen ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Errol <mailto:ecavit@tollnz.co.nz> Cavit=20 To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz=20 Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 11:24 PM Subject: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are wrong) Weaponsmith:=20 Issue: The formula voted in for the cost to make silvered (and = gilded/true-silvered) weapons gives ridiculously high values where = weapons are 'metalled' AND weaponsmithed. This is because the 'metalling' cost multiplier (x10, x120, or x180) is = applied to the full weaponsmithed cost to make - itself up to 13 times = the cost of a Rk0 weapon. So a truesilvered Rk10 Hand and a half with a = +2 DM starts out at 68sp (85 list price at 80%). It is then multiplied = by 13 for the weaponsmithing (884sp), and multiplied again by 180, to = give a cost of 159,120sp. We didn't notice this until Struan brought it up last week because the = example in the Rulebook has a Rk0 weaponsmith skill applied to the = weapon. I'm fairly sure we didn't intend to do this!=20 Proposed solution: Clearly state the formula in words, get the OK from = the list to include it in the March 2006 Rulebook, and put a revised = formula in, along with a good example. So, the cost to make a cold iron weaponsmithed weapon is unchanged: 80% = of the listed 'base cost' times (rank + 1 + DM increase). If a weapon is = silvered, gilded, or truesilvered, then add a cost calculated by = multiplying the weapon's 'base cost' by (10, 120, or 180), and applying = the standard 80% factor. (actually 9, 119 or 179 to account for the 1x in the weaponsmith rank = applied calculation)=20 A Rk10 (+2 DM) truesilvered Hand and a half then comes out at 13,056sp=20 80% x 85 x (10[rk] + 1 + 2[DM] + 179) =3D 13,056=20 A Rk0 silvered dagger (the original example) is 80=20 80% x 10 x (0 + 1 + 0 + 9) =3D 80=20 The exact wording and formula presentation can be improved.=20 What says the list?=20 I'll only go ahead with overwhelming approval.=20 Cheers=20 Errol=20 PS Thanks to Struan for crunching the numbers=20 PPS Yes, I'm as tired of talking about this as most people=20 > -----Original Message-----=20 > From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [ mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf = Of=20 > Struan Judd=20 > Sent: Tuesday, 13 December 2005 10:41=20 > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz=20 > Subject: [dq] The Weaponsmith changes are wrong=20 >=20 >=20 > Plus additional armourer changes are required.=20 >=20 > First the Armourer changes:=20 > There is no mention of of how Silvering and Truesilvering adjusts the=20 > cost to the Armourer of the Armour they are making (or repairing).=20 >=20 > I have a memory of this being discussed and resolved to be that the=20 > silvering and truesilvering costs are added to the final calculated=20 > cost, ie. the formula is:=20 > 80% x Base Cost =D7 (Effective Rank + 1) + (True)Silvering cost (if=20 > any) silver pennies.=20 >=20 > Thus for consistency the Weaponsmith change should be to bring the=20 > text in line with the equation not the other way round.=20 >=20 > My main reason is the innate value of the weapon:=20 > Using the old formula a Rk 10 +2 Dmg Dagger would cost:=20 > Normal - 104 sp, Silvered - 204 sp, Gilded - 1,304 sp and Truesilvered = > - 1,904 sp=20 > and a Rk 10 +2 dmg Hand and a half Sword would cost:=20 > Normal - 884 sp, Silvered - 1,734 sp, Gilded - 11,084 and Truesilvered = > - 16,184 sp=20 >=20 > whereas with the proposed new calculation:=20 > a Rk 10 +2 Dmg Dagger would cost:=20 > Normal - 104 sp, Silvered - 1040 sp, Gilded - 12,480 sp and=20 > Truesilvered - 18,720 sp=20 > and a Rk 10 +2 dmg Hand and a half Sword would cost:=20 > Normal - 884 sp, Silvered - 8840 sp, Gilded - 106,080 and Truesilvered = > - 159,120 sp=20 >=20 > Just far too much.=20 >=20 > I repeat:=20 >=20 > The Weaponsmith change should be to bring the text in line with the=20 > equation not the other way round.=20 >=20 > TTFN, Struan=20 >=20 >=20 > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --=20 >=20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6044C.8E0B88F5 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <TITLE>RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are wrong)</TITLE> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1528" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff> <DIV><SPAN class=3D558230403-19122005>Dear ALL, </SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D558230403-19122005></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D558230403-19122005>apologies for repeating part of an = old post,=20 but</SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D558230403-19122005></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D558230403-19122005>The existing rules are = WRONG.  And it=20 <EM>is</EM> important because the party's loot is based on the item's = worth --=20 or, in the case of invested etc, its COST.   It is also = relevant for=20 one of my characters who is constantly being asked to make = armour/weapons for=20 other guild members ... and is happy to do it since he only goes out = once every=20 4 or 5 sessions.</SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D558230403-19122005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff = size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D558230403-19122005>We need a simple-ish factor or=20 formula.  Also, the maximum valuation of a shaped item is 50k; = therefore a=20 silvered set of armour, should be less than that if it is just a matter = of real=20 metal weight & real cost of production.  Anything else is=20 stupid. </SPAN><SPAN class=3D558230403-19122005></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D558230403-19122005>Basing the silvering cost on a = multiplier=20 added to the base cost of the weapon is absurd -- since the time to make = any=20 weapon of the same rank is identicial, regardless of the = weapon. =20 *You MAY want to change this rule</SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D558230403-19122005></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=3D2><FONT size=3D3> An armourer = doesn’t <SPAN=20 class=3D558230403-19122005>turn a </SPAN>heavy chest of silver into a = smaller=20 weight of valuable metal -- that’s alchemy. <SPAN=20 class=3D558230403-19122005>  </SPAN>Now as GMs we can decide on any = set of=20 numbers, here is a rationale for some EASY figures<SPAN=20 class=3D558230403-19122005>.  </SPAN>Given that Silver has vital = importance=20 in the DQ world of werewolves and magic, it is reasonable to assume that = there=20 are reasons why coinage is sufficiently pure to be of "use." At the MOST = extreme=20 the silver content of the armour should be the equivalent of the silver = content=20 of the money.<SPAN class=3D558230403-19122005>   If, for=20 example, the weapon or armour has</SPAN> to be about 29% PURE = silver=20 and that money is Stirling standard (92.5% pure silver)<SPAN=20 class=3D558230403-19122005> </SPAN>means that the silver required is = 100sp per=20 pound -- very easy to add to the costs</FONT><SPAN=20 class=3D558230403-19122005><FONT size=3D3>.</FONT> <FONT = size=3D3>  Real=20 Costs.</FONT> </SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV> <P><SPAN class=3D558230403-19122005></SPAN><FONT face=3DArial = color=3D#0000ff=20 size=3D2><SPAN class=3D558230403-19122005><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" = color=3D#000000>The cost of a weapon/ armour should be</FONT>  = [cost of=20 material]  plus   [time taken] x [cost of that maker's=20 time]</SPAN></FONT></P> <P><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT> </P></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20 style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px = solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT = face=3DTahoma=20 size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> = dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz=20 [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]<B>On Behalf Of </B>Helen=20 Saggers<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, 19 December 2005 8:45 = a.m.<BR><B>To:</B>=20 dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The = Weaponsmith=20 changes are wrong)<BR><BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>rather than use 179 or 9 or 119 in = the formulas=20 might not it be better to replace the 1 with the whole 180 or which=20 ever.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>So a cold iron weapon is 80% = base cost=20 x(10(rk)+1+2(dm))</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>And a true silvered one is 80%base = cost x(10(rk)=20 +180+ 2(dm))</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Call the 1 10 120 or 180 metal type = or some=20 such where 1 is for cold iron.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Helen</FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20 style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; = BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV> <DIV=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: = black"><B>From:</B>=20 <A title=3Decavit@tollnz.co.nz = href=3D"mailto:ecavit@tollnz.co.nz">Errol=20 Cavit</A> </DIV> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A = title=3Ddq@dq.sf.org.nz=20 href=3D"mailto:dq@dq.sf.org.nz">dq@dq.sf.org.nz</A> </DIV> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, December 18, = 2005 11:24=20 PM</DIV> <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [dq] RULEBOOK FIX = (was The=20 Weaponsmith changes are wrong)</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <P><FONT size=3D2>Weaponsmith:</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=3D2>Issue: The formula voted in for the cost to make = silvered=20 (and gilded/true-silvered) weapons gives ridiculously high values = where=20 weapons are 'metalled' AND weaponsmithed.</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=3D2>This is because the 'metalling' cost multiplier = (x10, x120,=20 or x180) is applied to the full weaponsmithed cost to make - itself = up to 13=20 times the cost of a Rk0 weapon. So a truesilvered Rk10 Hand and a = half with=20 a +2 DM starts out at 68sp (85 list price at 80%). It is then = multiplied by=20 13 for the weaponsmithing (884sp), and multiplied again by 180, to = give a=20 cost of 159,120sp.</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=3D2>We didn't notice this until Struan brought it up = last week=20 because the example in the Rulebook has a Rk0 weaponsmith skill = applied to=20 the weapon.</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=3D2>I'm fairly sure we didn't intend to do = this!</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=3D2>Proposed solution: Clearly state the formula in = words, get=20 the OK from the list to include it in the March 2006 Rulebook, and = put a=20 revised formula in, along with a good example.</FONT></P><BR> <P><FONT size=3D2>So, the cost to make a cold iron weaponsmithed = weapon is=20 unchanged: 80% of the listed 'base cost' times (rank + 1 + DM = increase). If=20 a weapon is silvered, gilded, or truesilvered, then add a cost = calculated by=20 multiplying the weapon's 'base cost' by (10, 120, or 180), and = applying the=20 standard 80% factor.</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=3D2>*(actually 9, 119 or 179 to account for the 1x in = the=20 weaponsmith rank applied calculation)</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=3D2>A Rk10 (+2 DM) truesilvered Hand and a half then = comes out=20 at 13,056sp</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=3D2>80% x 85 x (10[rk] + 1 + 2[DM] + 179) =3D = 13,056</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=3D2>A Rk0 silvered dagger (the original example) is = 80</FONT>=20 </P> <P><FONT size=3D2>80% x 10 x (0 + 1 + 0 + 9) =3D 80</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=3D2>The exact wording and formula presentation can be=20 improved.</FONT> </P><BR> <P><FONT size=3D2>What says the list?</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>I'll = only go=20 ahead with overwhelming approval.</FONT> </P><BR> <P><FONT size=3D2>Cheers</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>Errol</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=3D2>PS Thanks to Struan for crunching the = numbers</FONT>=20 <BR><FONT size=3D2>PPS Yes, I'm as tired of talking about this as = most=20 people</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=3D2>> -----Original Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT = size=3D2>>=20 From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [<A=20 = href=3D"mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</A>]On= =20 Behalf Of</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> Struan Judd</FONT> = <BR><FONT=20 size=3D2>> Sent: Tuesday, 13 December 2005 10:41</FONT> <BR><FONT = size=3D2>> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> = Subject: [dq]=20 The Weaponsmith changes are wrong</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>>=20 </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>> </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>> Plus = additional=20 armourer changes are required.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> = </FONT><BR><FONT=20 size=3D2>> First the Armourer changes:</FONT> <BR><FONT = size=3D2>> There=20 is no mention of of how Silvering and Truesilvering adjusts = the</FONT>=20 <BR><FONT size=3D2>> cost to the Armourer of the Armour they are = making (or=20 repairing).</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> </FONT><BR><FONT = size=3D2>> I have=20 a memory of this being discussed and resolved to be that the</FONT>=20 <BR><FONT size=3D2>> silvering and truesilvering costs are added = to the=20 final calculated</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> cost, ie. the = formula=20 is:</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>>   80% x Base Cost =D7 = (Effective=20 Rank + 1) + (True)Silvering cost (if</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> = any)=20 silver pennies.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> </FONT><BR><FONT = size=3D2>>=20 Thus for consistency the Weaponsmith change should be to bring = the</FONT>=20 <BR><FONT size=3D2>> text in line with the equation not the other = way=20 round.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>> = My main=20 reason is the innate value of the weapon:</FONT> <BR><FONT = size=3D2>> Using=20 the old formula a Rk 10 +2 Dmg Dagger would cost:</FONT> <BR><FONT=20 size=3D2>> Normal - 104 sp, Silvered - 204 sp, Gilded - 1,304 sp = and=20 Truesilvered</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> - 1,904 sp</FONT> = <BR><FONT=20 size=3D2>> and a Rk 10 +2 dmg Hand and a half Sword would = cost:</FONT>=20 <BR><FONT size=3D2>> Normal - 884 sp, Silvered - 1,734 sp, Gilded = - 11,084=20 and Truesilvered</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> - 16,184 sp</FONT> = <BR><FONT=20 size=3D2>> </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>> whereas with the = proposed new=20 calculation:</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> a Rk 10 +2 Dmg Dagger = would=20 cost:</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> Normal - 104 sp, Silvered - = 1040 sp,=20 Gilded - 12,480 sp and</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> Truesilvered - = 18,720=20 sp</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> and a Rk 10 +2 dmg Hand and a half = Sword=20 would cost:</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> Normal - 884 sp, Silvered = - 8840=20 sp, Gilded - 106,080 and Truesilvered</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> = - 159,120=20 sp</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>> = Just far too=20 much.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>> = I=20 repeat:</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> </FONT><BR><FONT = size=3D2>> The=20 Weaponsmith change should be to bring the text in line with = the</FONT>=20 <BR><FONT size=3D2>> equation not the other way round.</FONT> = <BR><FONT=20 size=3D2>> </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>> TTFN, Struan</FONT> = <BR><FONT=20 size=3D2>> </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>> </FONT><BR><FONT = size=3D2>> -- to=20 unsubscribe notify <A=20 = href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</A= >=20 --</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>>=20 </FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6044C.8E0B88F5-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are wrong)
From	RPer 4eva
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:49:20 +1300
------=_Part_1569_11628936.1134967760225 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline I like this idea alot. I've always thought half giants should pay more for armor than halflings. If everone was roughly the same size this might be pedantic but I think its quite significant given the size differences for characters and the fact we already have size tables to calculate weight of said armor. Dylan On 12/19/05, Michael Parkinson <m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz> wrote: > > Dear ALL, > > apologies for repeating part of an old post, but > > The existing rules are WRONG. And it is important because the party's > loot is based on the item's worth -- or, in the case of invested etc, its > COST. It is also relevant for one of my characters who is constantly be= ing > asked to make armour/weapons for other guild members ... and is happy to = do > it since he only goes out once every 4 or 5 sessions. > > We need a simple-ish factor or formula. Also, the maximum valuation of a > shaped item is 50k; therefore a silvered set of armour, should be less th= an > that if it is just a matter of real metal weight & real cost of productio= n. > Anything else is stupid. > Basing the silvering cost on a multiplier added to the base cost of the > weapon is absurd -- since the time to make any weapon of the same rank > is identicial, regardless of the weapon. *You MAY want to change this > rule* > > An armourer doesn't turn a heavy chest of silver into a smaller weight o= f > valuable metal -- that's alchemy. Now as GMs we can decide on any set o= f > numbers, here is a rationale for some EASY figures. Given that Silver ha= s > vital importance in the DQ world of werewolves and magic, it is reasonabl= e > to assume that there are reasons why coinage is sufficiently pure to be o= f > "use." At the MOST extreme the silver content of the armour should be the > equivalent of the silver content of the money. If, for example, the > weapon or armour has to be about 29% PURE silver and that money is > Stirling standard (92.5% pure silver) means that the silver required is > 100sp per pound -- very easy to add to the costs. Real Costs. > > The cost of a weapon/ armour should be [cost of material] plus [time > taken] x [cost of that maker's time] > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of > Helen Saggers > Sent: Monday, 19 December 2005 8:45 a.m. > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are wrong) > > rather than use 179 or 9 or 119 in the formulas might not it be better to > replace the 1 with the whole 180 or which ever. > > So a cold iron weapon is 80% base cost x(10(rk)+1+2(dm)) > And a true silvered one is 80%base cost x(10(rk) +180+ 2(dm)) > > Call the 1 10 120 or 180 metal type or some such where 1 is for cold iron= . > > Helen > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Errol Cavit <ecavit@tollnz.co.nz> > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 11:24 PM > Subject: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are wrong) > > > > Weaponsmith: > > Issue: The formula voted in for the cost to make silvered (and > gilded/true-silvered) weapons gives ridiculously high values where weapon= s > are 'metalled' AND weaponsmithed. > > This is because the 'metalling' cost multiplier (x10, x120, or x180) is > applied to the full weaponsmithed cost to make - itself up to 13 times th= e > cost of a Rk0 weapon. So a truesilvered Rk10 Hand and a half with a +2 DM > starts out at 68sp (85 list price at 80%). It is then multiplied by 13 fo= r > the weaponsmithing (884sp), and multiplied again by 180, to give a cost o= f > 159,120sp. > > We didn't notice this until Struan brought it up last week because the > example in the Rulebook has a Rk0 weaponsmith skill applied to the weapon= . > > I'm fairly sure we didn't intend to do this! > > Proposed solution: Clearly state the formula in words, get the OK from th= e > list to include it in the March 2006 Rulebook, and put a revised formula = in, > along with a good example. > > So, the cost to make a cold iron weaponsmithed weapon is unchanged: 80% o= f > the listed 'base cost' times (rank + 1 + DM increase). If a weapon is > silvered, gilded, or truesilvered, then add a cost calculated by multiply= ing > the weapon's 'base cost' by (10, 120, or 180), and applying the standard > 80% factor. > > (actually 9, 119 or 179 to account for the 1x in the weaponsmith rank > applied calculation) > > A Rk10 (+2 DM) truesilvered Hand and a half then comes out at 13,056sp > > 80% x 85 x (10[rk] + 1 + 2[DM] + 179) =3D 13,056 > > A Rk0 silvered dagger (the original example) is 80 > > 80% x 10 x (0 + 1 + 0 + 9) =3D 80 > > The exact wording and formula presentation can be improved. > > What says the list? > I'll only go ahead with overwhelming approval. > > Cheers > Errol > > PS Thanks to Struan for crunching the numbers > PPS Yes, I'm as tired of talking about this as most people > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz<dq-owner@dq.s= f.org.nz>]On > Behalf Of > > Struan Judd > > Sent: Tuesday, 13 December 2005 10:41 > > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > > Subject: [dq] The Weaponsmith changes are wrong > > > > > > Plus additional armourer changes are required. > > > > First the Armourer changes: > > There is no mention of of how Silvering and Truesilvering adjusts the > > cost to the Armourer of the Armour they are making (or repairing). > > > > I have a memory of this being discussed and resolved to be that the > > silvering and truesilvering costs are added to the final calculated > > cost, ie. the formula is: > > 80% x Base Cost =D7 (Effective Rank + 1) + (True)Silvering cost (if > > any) silver pennies. > > > > Thus for consistency the Weaponsmith change should be to bring the > > text in line with the equation not the other way round. > > > > My main reason is the innate value of the weapon: > > Using the old formula a Rk 10 +2 Dmg Dagger would cost: > > Normal - 104 sp, Silvered - 204 sp, Gilded - 1,304 sp and Truesilvered > > - 1,904 sp > > and a Rk 10 +2 dmg Hand and a half Sword would cost: > > Normal - 884 sp, Silvered - 1,734 sp, Gilded - 11,084 and Truesilvered > > - 16,184 sp > > > > whereas with the proposed new calculation: > > a Rk 10 +2 Dmg Dagger would cost: > > Normal - 104 sp, Silvered - 1040 sp, Gilded - 12,480 sp and > > Truesilvered - 18,720 sp > > and a Rk 10 +2 dmg Hand and a half Sword would cost: > > Normal - 884 sp, Silvered - 8840 sp, Gilded - 106,080 and Truesilvered > > - 159,120 sp > > > > Just far too much. > > > > I repeat: > > > > The Weaponsmith change should be to bring the text in line with the > > equation not the other way round. > > > > TTFN, Struan > > > > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz<dq-request@dq.s= f.org.nz>-- > > > > ------=_Part_1569_11628936.1134967760225 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline <div>I like this idea alot. I've always thought half giants should pay more= for armor than halflings. If everone was roughly the same size this might = be pedantic but I think its quite significant given the size differences fo= r characters and the fact we already have size tables to calculate weight o= f said armor. </div> <div> </div> <div>Dylan<br><br> </div> <div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 12/19/05, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername"= >Michael Parkinson</b> <<a href=3D"mailto:m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz">m.= parkinson@auckland.ac.nz</a>> wrote:</span> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0= px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"> <div><span>Dear ALL, </span></div> <div><span></span> </div> <div><span>apologies for repeating part of an old post, but</span></div> <div><span></span> </div> <div><span>The existing rules are WRONG.  And it <em>is</em> important= because the party's loot is based on the item's worth -- or, in the case o= f invested etc, its COST.   It is also relevant for one of my cha= racters who is constantly being asked to make armour/weapons for other guil= d members ... and is happy to do it since he only goes out once every 4 or&= nbsp;5 sessions. </span></div> <div><span><font face=3D"Arial" color=3D"#0000ff" size=3D"2"></font></span>=  </div> <div><span>We need a simple-ish factor or formula.  Also, the maximum = valuation of a shaped item is 50k; therefore a silvered set of armour, shou= ld be less than that if it is just a matter of real metal weight & real= cost of production.  Anything else is stupid.  </span><span></span></div> <div><span>Basing the silvering cost on a multiplier added to the base cost= of the weapon is absurd -- since the time to make any weapon of the same r= ank is identicial, regardless of the weapon.  *You MAY want to = change this rule* </span></div> <div><span></span> </div> <div><font size=3D"2"><font size=3D"3"> An armourer doesn't <span= >turn a </span>heavy chest of silver into a smaller weight of valuable meta= l -- that's alchemy. <span>  </span>Now as GMs we can decide on a= ny set of numbers, here is a rationale for some EASY figures <span>.  </span>Given that Silver has vital importance in the DQ world= of werewolves and magic, it is reasonable to assume that there are reasons= why coinage is sufficiently pure to be of "use." At the MOST ext= reme the silver content of the armour should be the equivalent of the silve= r content of the money. <span>   If, for example, the weapon or armour has</span>&nb= sp;to be about 29% PURE silver and that money is Stirling standard (92.5% p= ure silver)<span> </span>means that the silver required is 100sp per pound = -- very easy to add to the costs </font><span><font size=3D"3">.</font> <font size=3D"3">  Real Co= sts.</font> </span></font></div> <div> <p><span></span><font face=3D"Arial" color=3D"#0000ff" size=3D"2"><span><fo= nt face=3D"Times New Roman" color=3D"#000000">The cost of a weapon/ armour = should be</font>  [cost of material]  plus   [time take= n] x [cost of that maker's time] </span></font></p> <p><font face=3D"Arial" color=3D"#0000ff" size=3D"2"></font> </p></div= > <blockquote dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDE= R-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><span class=3D"q"> <div dir=3D"ltr" align=3D"left"><font face=3D"Tahoma" size=3D"2">-----Origi= nal Message-----<br><b>From:</b> <a onclick=3D"return top.js.OpenExtLink(wi= ndow,event,this)" href=3D"mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz" target=3D"_blank">d= q-owner@dq.sf.org.nz </a> [mailto:<a onclick=3D"return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" hr= ef=3D"mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz" target=3D"_blank">dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz= </a>]<b>On Behalf Of </b>Helen Saggers<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, 19 December = 2005 8:45=20 a.m.<br><b>To:</b> <a onclick=3D"return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,thi= s)" href=3D"mailto:dq@dq.sf.org.nz" target=3D"_blank">dq@dq.sf.org.nz</a><b= r><b>Subject:</b> Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are wr= ong) <br><br></font></div></span><span class=3D"q"> <div><font face=3D"Arial" size=3D"2">rather than use 179 or 9 or 119 in the= formulas might not it be better to replace the 1 with the whole 180 or whi= ch ever.</font></div> <div><font face=3D"Arial" size=3D"2"></font> </div> <div><font face=3D"Arial" size=3D"2">So a cold iron weapon is 80% base= cost x(10(rk)+1+2(dm))</font></div> <div><font face=3D"Arial" size=3D"2">And a true silvered one is 80%base cos= t x(10(rk) +180+ 2(dm))</font></div> <div><font face=3D"Arial" size=3D"2"></font> </div> <div><font face=3D"Arial" size=3D"2">Call the 1 10 120 or 180 metal type or= some such where 1 is for cold iron.</font></div> <div><font face=3D"Arial" size=3D"2"></font> </div></span> <div><font face=3D"Arial" size=3D"2">Helen</font></div> <blockquote dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MAR= GIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><span cla= ss=3D"q"> <div style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </div> <div style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial"><b>From:</b> <a title= =3D"ecavit@tollnz.co.nz" onclick=3D"return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,= this)" href=3D"mailto:ecavit@tollnz.co.nz" target=3D"_blank">Errol Cavit</a= > </div> </span><span class=3D"q"> <div style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><b>To:</b> <a title=3D"dq@dq.sf.org.nz" onc= lick=3D"return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href=3D"mailto:dq@dq.= sf.org.nz" target=3D"_blank">dq@dq.sf.org.nz</a> </div></span><span class= =3D"q"> <div style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Sent:</b> Sunday, December 18, 2005 11:2= 4 PM</div></span> <div><span class=3D"e" id=3D"q_108411136221ee8f_7"> <div style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Subject:</b> [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The = Weaponsmith changes are wrong)</div> <div><br> </div> <p><font size=3D"2">Weaponsmith:</font> </p> <p><font size=3D"2">Issue: The formula voted in for the cost to make silver= ed (and gilded/true-silvered) weapons gives ridiculously high values where = weapons are 'metalled' AND weaponsmithed.</font></p> <p><font size=3D"2">This is because the 'metalling' cost multiplier (x10, x= 120, or x180) is applied to the full weaponsmithed cost to make - itself up= to 13 times the cost of a Rk0 weapon. So a truesilvered Rk10 Hand and a ha= lf with a +2 DM starts out at 68sp (85 list price at 80%). It is then multi= plied by 13 for the weaponsmithing (884sp), and multiplied again by 180, to= give a cost of 159,120sp. </font></p> <p><font size=3D"2">We didn't notice this until Struan brought it up last w= eek because the example in the Rulebook has a Rk0 weaponsmith skill applied= to the weapon.</font></p> <p><font size=3D"2">I'm fairly sure we didn't intend to do this!</font> </p= > <p><font size=3D"2">Proposed solution: Clearly state the formula in words, = get the OK from the list to include it in the March 2006 Rulebook, and put = a revised formula in, along with a good example.</font></p><br> <p><font size=3D"2">So, the cost to make a cold iron weaponsmithed weapon i= s unchanged: 80% of the listed 'base cost' times (rank + 1 + DM increase). = If a weapon is silvered, gilded, or truesilvered, then add a cost calculate= d by multiplying the weapon's 'base cost' by (10, 120, or 180), and applyi= ng the standard 80% factor. </font></p> <p><font size=3D"2">(actually 9, 119 or 179 to account for the 1x in the w= eaponsmith rank applied calculation)</font> </p> <p><font size=3D"2">A Rk10 (+2 DM) truesilvered Hand and a half then comes = out at 13,056sp</font> </p> <p><font size=3D"2">80% x 85 x (10[rk] + 1 + 2[DM] + 179) =3D 13,056</font>= </p> <p><font size=3D"2">A Rk0 silvered dagger (the original example) is 80</fon= t> </p> <p><font size=3D"2">80% x 10 x (0 + 1 + 0 + 9) =3D 80</font> </p> <p><font size=3D"2">The exact wording and formula presentation can be impro= ved.</font> </p><br> <p><font size=3D"2">What says the list?</font> <br><font size=3D"2">I'll on= ly go ahead with overwhelming approval.</font> </p><br> <p><font size=3D"2">Cheers</font> <br><font size=3D"2">Errol</font> </p> <p><font size=3D"2">PS Thanks to Struan for crunching the numbers</font> <b= r><font size=3D"2">PPS Yes, I'm as tired of talking about this as most peop= le</font> </p></span></div> <p> <div><span class=3D"e" id=3D"q_108411136221ee8f_9"><font size=3D"2">> --= ---Original Message-----</font> <br><font size=3D"2">> From: <a onclick= =3D"return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href=3D"mailto:dq-owner@d= q.sf.org.nz" target=3D"_blank"> dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</a> [<a onclick=3D"return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,e= vent,this)" href=3D"mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz" target=3D"_blank">mailto:= dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</a>]On Behalf Of</font> <br><font size=3D"2">> Str= uan Judd </font> <br><font size=3D"2">> Sent: Tuesday, 13 December 2005 10:41</fo= nt> <br></span></div><span class=3D"q"><font size=3D"2">> To: <a onclick= =3D"return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href=3D"mailto:dq@dq.sf.o= rg.nz" target=3D"_blank"> dq@dq.sf.org.nz</a></font> <br></span> <div><span class=3D"e" id=3D"q_108411136221ee8f_11"><font size=3D"2">> S= ubject: [dq] The Weaponsmith changes are wrong</font> <br><font size=3D"2">= > </font><br><font size=3D"2">> </font><br><font size=3D"2">> Plus= additional armourer changes are required. </font> <br><font size=3D"2">> </font><br><font size=3D"2">> First th= e Armourer changes:</font> <br><font size=3D"2">> There is no mention of= of how Silvering and Truesilvering adjusts the</font> <br><font size=3D"2"= >> cost to the Armourer of the Armour they are making (or repairing). </font> <br><font size=3D"2">> </font><br><font size=3D"2">> I have a= memory of this being discussed and resolved to be that the</font> <br><fon= t size=3D"2">> silvering and truesilvering costs are added to the final = calculated </font> <br><font size=3D"2">> cost, ie. the formula is:</font> <br><fon= t size=3D"2">>   80% x Base Cost =D7 (Effective Rank + 1) + (T= rue)Silvering cost (if</font> <br><font size=3D"2">> any) silver pennies= .</font> <br><font size=3D"2"> > </font><br><font size=3D"2">> Thus for consistency the Weaponsmith = change should be to bring the</font> <br><font size=3D"2">> text in line= with the equation not the other way round.</font> <br><font size=3D"2">&gt= ;=20 </font><br><font size=3D"2">> My main reason is the innate value of the = weapon:</font> <br><font size=3D"2">> Using the old formula a Rk 10 +2 D= mg Dagger would cost:</font> <br><font size=3D"2">> Normal - 104 sp, Sil= vered - 204 sp, Gilded - 1,304 sp and Truesilvered </font> <br><font size=3D"2">> - 1,904 sp</font> <br><font size=3D"2">&g= t; and a Rk 10 +2 dmg Hand and a half Sword would cost:</font> <br><font si= ze=3D"2">> Normal - 884 sp, Silvered - 1,734 sp, Gilded - 11,084 and Tru= esilvered </font> <br><font size=3D"2">> - 16,184 sp</font> <br><font size=3D"2">&= gt; </font><br><font size=3D"2">> whereas with the proposed new calculat= ion:</font> <br><font size=3D"2">> a Rk 10 +2 Dmg Dagger would cost:</fo= nt>=20 <br><font size=3D"2">> Normal - 104 sp, Silvered - 1040 sp, Gilded - 12,= 480 sp and</font> <br><font size=3D"2">> Truesilvered - 18,720 sp</font>= <br><font size=3D"2">> and a Rk 10 +2 dmg Hand and a half Sword would c= ost: </font> <br><font size=3D"2">> Normal - 884 sp, Silvered - 8840 sp, Gild= ed - 106,080 and Truesilvered</font> <br><font size=3D"2">> - 159,120 sp= </font> <br><font size=3D"2">> </font><br><font size=3D"2">> Just far= too much. </font> <br><font size=3D"2">> </font><br><font size=3D"2">> I repeat= :</font> <br><font size=3D"2">> </font><br><font size=3D"2">> The Wea= ponsmith change should be to bring the text in line with the</font> <br><fo= nt size=3D"2"> > equation not the other way round.</font> <br><font size=3D"2">> </f= ont><br><font size=3D"2">> TTFN, Struan</font> <br><font size=3D"2">>= </font><br><font size=3D"2">> </font><br></span></div><span class=3D"q"= ><font size=3D"2"> > -- to unsubscribe notify <a onclick=3D"return top.js.OpenExtLink(windo= w,event,this)" href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz" target=3D"_blank">ma= ilto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</a> --</font> <br><font size=3D"2">> </font= ></span> <p></p></p></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></div><br> ------=_Part_1569_11628936.1134967760225-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	[dq] Dentistry
From	RPer 4eva
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:51:19 +1300
------=_Part_1601_1791790.1134967879082 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline What level can a healer effect teeth? I was thinking maybe in 15th centuary science teeth were just bones but I wondered if this is normaly accepted. I= f not what level should I be to fix crooked teeth or chipped teeth or even heavily decayed teeth? I assume regrowing teeth is probably covered by regeneration. Anyway I'm curious for any and all knowledge about what heale= r ranks do dentistry. Dylan ------=_Part_1601_1791790.1134967879082 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline <div>What level can a healer effect teeth? I was thinking maybe in 15th cen= tuary science teeth were just bones but I wondered if this is normaly accep= ted. If not what level should I be to fix crooked teeth or chipped teeth or= even heavily decayed teeth? I assume regrowing teeth is probably covered b= y regeneration. Anyway I'm curious for any and all knowledge about what hea= ler ranks do dentistry. </div> <div> </div> <div>Dylan</div> ------=_Part_1601_1791790.1134967879082-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] RULEBOOK FIX (was The Weaponsmith changes are wrong)
From	Kharsis
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 18:34:39 +1300
I approve Scott Whitaker Errol Cavit wrote: > Weaponsmith: > > Issue: The formula voted in for the cost to make silvered (and > gilded/true-silvered) weapons gives ridiculously high values where > weapons are 'metalled' AND weaponsmithed. > > This is because the 'metalling' cost multiplier (x10, x120, or x180) > is applied to the full weaponsmithed cost to make - itself up to 13 > times the cost of a Rk0 weapon. So a truesilvered Rk10 Hand and a half > with a +2 DM starts out at 68sp (85 list price at 80%). It is then > multiplied by 13 for the weaponsmithing (884sp), and multiplied again > by 180, to give a cost of 159,120sp. > > We didn't notice this until Struan brought it up last week because the > example in the Rulebook has a Rk0 weaponsmith skill applied to the weapon. > > I'm fairly sure we didn't intend to do this! > > Proposed solution: Clearly state the formula in words, get the OK from > the list to include it in the March 2006 Rulebook, and put a revised > formula in, along with a good example. > > > So, the cost to make a cold iron weaponsmithed weapon is unchanged: > 80% of the listed 'base cost' times (rank + 1 + DM increase). If a > weapon is silvered, gilded, or truesilvered, then add a cost > calculated by multiplying the weapon's 'base cost' by (10, 120, or > 180), and applying the standard 80% factor. > > (actually 9, 119 or 179 to account for the 1x in the weaponsmith rank > applied calculation) > > A Rk10 (+2 DM) truesilvered Hand and a half then comes out at 13,056sp > > 80% x 85 x (10[rk] + 1 + 2[DM] + 179) = 13,056 > > A Rk0 silvered dagger (the original example) is 80 > > 80% x 10 x (0 + 1 + 0 + 9) = 80 > > The exact wording and formula presentation can be improved. > > > What says the list? > I'll only go ahead with overwhelming approval. > > > Cheers > Errol > > PS Thanks to Struan for crunching the numbers > PPS Yes, I'm as tired of talking about this as most people > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of > > Struan Judd > > Sent: Tuesday, 13 December 2005 10:41 > > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > > Subject: [dq] The Weaponsmith changes are wrong > > > > > > Plus additional armourer changes are required. > > > > First the Armourer changes: > > There is no mention of of how Silvering and Truesilvering adjusts the > > cost to the Armourer of the Armour they are making (or repairing). > > > > I have a memory of this being discussed and resolved to be that the > > silvering and truesilvering costs are added to the final calculated > > cost, ie. the formula is: > > 80% x Base Cost × (Effective Rank + 1) + (True)Silvering cost (if > > any) silver pennies. > > > > Thus for consistency the Weaponsmith change should be to bring the > > text in line with the equation not the other way round. > > > > My main reason is the innate value of the weapon: > > Using the old formula a Rk 10 +2 Dmg Dagger would cost: > > Normal - 104 sp, Silvered - 204 sp, Gilded - 1,304 sp and Truesilvered > > - 1,904 sp > > and a Rk 10 +2 dmg Hand and a half Sword would cost: > > Normal - 884 sp, Silvered - 1,734 sp, Gilded - 11,084 and Truesilvered > > - 16,184 sp > > > > whereas with the proposed new calculation: > > a Rk 10 +2 Dmg Dagger would cost: > > Normal - 104 sp, Silvered - 1040 sp, Gilded - 12,480 sp and > > Truesilvered - 18,720 sp > > and a Rk 10 +2 dmg Hand and a half Sword would cost: > > Normal - 884 sp, Silvered - 8840 sp, Gilded - 106,080 and Truesilvered > > - 159,120 sp > > > > Just far too much. > > > > I repeat: > > > > The Weaponsmith change should be to bring the text in line with the > > equation not the other way round. > > > > TTFN, Struan > > > > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	[dq] Null mana zones
From	RPer 4eva
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:32:29 +1300
------=_Part_2921_1466089.1134981149369 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline As part of our adventure we went to find out where the nearest null mana / no mana / dead mana zone is. Can anyone help us if they know off any such zone on alusia please? Dylan ------=_Part_2921_1466089.1134981149369 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline <div>As part of our adventure we went to find out where the nearest null ma= na / no mana / dead mana zone is. Can anyone help us if they know off any s= uch zone on alusia please?</div> <div> </div> <div>Dylan</div> ------=_Part_2921_1466089.1134981149369-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Dentistry
From	raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:51:44 +1300
Quoting RPer 4eva <msnoverflow@gmail.com>: > What level can a healer effect teeth? I was thinking maybe in 15th centuary > science teeth were just bones but I wondered if this is normaly accepted. If > not what level should I be to fix crooked teeth or chipped teeth or even > heavily decayed teeth? I assume regrowing teeth is probably covered by > regeneration. Anyway I'm curious for any and all knowledge about what healer > ranks do dentistry. They need to be rank 8 in artisan (barber) to be able to regenerate teeth. Or artisan (pie maker). Jim. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Null mana zones
From	Clare Baldock
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 23:01:15 +1300
On 19/12/2005, at 21:32, RPer 4eva wrote: > As part of our adventure we went to find out where the nearest null > mana / no mana / dead mana zone is. Can anyone help us if they know > off any such zone on alusia please? Where are you going to ask? And when? cheers, clare -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Null mana zones
From	RPer 4eva
Date	Mon, 19 Dec 2005 23:52:32 +1300
------=_Part_4211_32833939.1134989552445 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline At the guild. People will have already left but we checked the guild libraries. The question is kind of an OOC plea since neither the Players or the DM actualy know the answer. So if the answer is unknown to the guild libraries and maps etc don't tell us just because your character knows. Dylan On 12/19/05, Clare Baldock <clare@orcon.net.nz> wrote: > > > On 19/12/2005, at 21:32, RPer 4eva wrote: > > > As part of our adventure we went to find out where the nearest null > > mana / no mana / dead mana zone is. Can anyone help us if they know > > off any such zone on alusia please? > > Where are you going to ask? And when? > > cheers, > > clare > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > ------=_Part_4211_32833939.1134989552445 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline <div>At the guild. People will have already left but we checked the guild l= ibraries. The question is kind of an OOC plea since neither the Players or = the DM actualy know the answer. So if the answer is unknown to the guild li= braries and maps etc don't tell us just because your character knows. </div> <div> </div> <div>Dylan<br><br> </div> <div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 12/19/05, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername"= >Clare Baldock</b> <<a href=3D"mailto:clare@orcon.net.nz">clare@orcon.ne= t.nz</a>> wrote:</span> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0= px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><br>On 19/12/2005, at 21:32, RPe= r 4eva wrote:<br><br>> As part of our adventure we went to find out wher= e the nearest null <br>> mana / no mana / dead mana zone is. Can anyone help us if they kno= w<br>> off any such zone on alusia please?<br><br>Where are you going to= ask? And when?<br><br>cheers,<br><br>clare<br><br><br>-- to unsubscribe no= tify mailto: <a href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</a> --<b= r></blockquote></div><br> ------=_Part_4211_32833939.1134989552445-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --