Re: Magic Item enchantments: Chance of critical failures.

[Daniel W Tulloh <drfaustus61@cox.net>]

Rick,

I think charging the buyer for the underlying cost of the item makes sense from this perspective:  if the Wizards Guild buys a gold ring ( or makes it or causes it to be made ), they claim the right to charge the customer for ring and any enchantment that were added.

If however, the Thorz gave them a coat of armor and directed them to enchant it with Reverse Missiles, then that enchantment is all they can legally charge the Thorz for.

After all, you wouldn't expect to pay the same price for a silver Reverse Missiles ring as you would for a gold one.  ( assuming of course, that silver can take an enchantment )

That's the way I've always rationalized that "underlying" statement.   I could be wrong, of course - there was a documented case in the 90's.

Dan

On November 7, 2016, at 6:13 PM, Rick Smith <rick_ww@lightspeed.ca> wrote:

Hi Thomas,
  It changes the failure rate from the way we were (incorrectly) playing it.

  I think I have figured out how the TFT rules evolved.  I think that in an
early draft of TFT, an 18 destroyed ALL enchantments on an item, and
that that rule was revised before Advanced Wizard went to print.  The
phrase "... value of the UNDERLYING item..." was left over from that
old rule set.

  Warm regards, Rick.



On 2016-11-07, at 5:10 PM, Thomas Fulmer wrote:

> Rick,
> 
> I don't think this changes the failure rate. Twice as long rolling every other week...
> 
> So if it would normally have been 10 weeks and 10 rolls, now it's 20 weeks and 10 rolls. Same failure chance but it takes longer.
> 
> Third enchant is presumably 40 weeks and 10 rolls.
> 
> --Thomas

=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"