Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Achille Autran)
Subject: Weapon foci and orichalcum: MitS vs BBB, round 1
Date: Fri Jun 1 16:20:01 2001
I don't know if this subject was covered recently, I've got some faint
memories but these seem old...

Anyway, we've got some slightly contradicting items between SR3 BBB and
MitS: in SR3 it says that orichalcum is a mandatory in a weapon focus,
whereas MitS never implies such a thought.

Digging a little bit, it looks like the orichalcum rules date from the 1st
ed (well, 14th ed) Grimoire, with (reach+1) units of orichalcum being
necessary to enchant the focus. This is reflected in the "retail" price
([reach+1]*100 000 + 90 000 / power) that looks in line with a 88 000 ¥ per
unit orichalcum.

I think that the old rule is rather unjustified. As MitS implies,
orichalcum should be a bonus, somethings that eases the making and bonding
of the focus (and that's very valuable with weapon foci), but not something
mandatory. The SR3 blurb could then be a "cut'n'paste" fumble that passsed
the scrying eyes of Mr Kenson.

Anyway, what's your take on this matter ? Anyone had a player enchant a
sword or a pair of spurs ? Steve ?

Molloy

P.S.: this question caused a quite active discussion on the french SR
mailing list, where funnily enough the hardcore canon stickers and quoters
where on the "ditch away SR3" side, and home-rulers holding the BBB like an
holy icon....
Message no. 2
From: shadowrn@*********.com (BD)
Subject: Weapon foci and orichalcum: MitS vs BBB, round 1
Date: Fri Jun 1 16:40:01 2001
--- Achille Autran <aautran@****.fr> wrote:
> Anyway, we've got some slightly contradicting items between SR3 BBB and
> MitS: in SR3 it says that orichalcum is a mandatory in a weapon focus,
> whereas MitS never implies such a thought.

I say, go with the newer source. Down with orichalcum!

As for enchanting spurs... I dunno... that's pretty odd. I suppose you
could do it, but what a pain in the ass if someone destroys the focus. And
I certainly wouldn't let anyone enchant spurs after implantation :)

====-Boondocker

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Message no. 3
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Sebastian Wiers)
Subject: Weapon foci and orichalcum: MitS vs BBB, round 1
Date: Fri Jun 1 22:40:01 2001
>Anyway, we've got some slightly contradicting items between SR3 BBB and
>MitS: in SR3 it says that orichalcum is a mandatory in a weapon focus,
>whereas MitS never implies such a thought.
>
>Digging a little bit, it looks like the orichalcum rules date from the 1st
>ed (well, 14th ed) Grimoire, with (reach+1) units of orichalcum being
>necessary to enchant the focus. This is reflected in the "retail" price
>([reach+1]*100 000 + 90 000 / power) that looks in line with a 88 000 ¥ per
>unit orichalcum.

Maybe its so common that if you BUY a weapon focus, Orichalcum will / must
be a part of it- nobody bothers making them for sale without including it,
because its to much work. On the other hand, a person working on thier own
can "do it the hard way"...

-M0ng005e

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Weapon foci and orichalcum: MitS vs BBB, round 1, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!