Talk:Staff of Wucad Mu

From CrawlWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I found an "ephemeral staff" at the Bazaar for a decent price. It's the Staff of Wucad Mu, which is quite difficult to evaluate. A very rarely appearing item, high risk of miscast effects and no reliable use. - Why is the "unidentified name" not part of the crawl wiki text? Is it a random and not a fixed name? -- Bwijn 19:29, 23 February 2013 (CET)

Are you playing an old version? I thought that as of 0.11, all unrands would be identified on sight, making the un-ID'd description irrelevant. Anyway, the un-ID'd descriptions are actually in pretty much all of the unrand articles, but these four staves already had articles written a while ago which don't mention the descriptions. If the un-ID'd description was found in 0.11 feel free to add it. -Ion frigate 22:20, 23 February 2013 (CET)
Oh, and if you're a caster it's worth buying. -Ion frigate 22:21, 23 February 2013 (CET)
No, you're right, I prefered a 10.3 game. The graphics and the odds IMHO are better. - Shouldn't we add a history chapter for obsoleted details like that? Even the online servers don't offer solely 0.11 version games. -- Bwijn 00:31, 24 February 2013 (CET)
Sure. Ideally, we should actually write history sections like that for all the unrand articles (currently, it gives the un-ID'd appearance in the main description). One thing I'm not sure, though, is whether or not that appearance might still appear when you examine the artefact in 0.11+ - it might. -Ion frigate 00:46, 24 February 2013 (CET)

change from quarterstaff

Anybody know when this stopped being a quarterstaff? --spudwalt (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2014 (CEST)

problems to come in 0.17

"You can avoid confusion by having clarity, and wearing a ring of sustain abilities prevent some of the intelligence damage. Even so, a number of potions of restore abilities will be necessary if this item is to be used consistently." Well, as matters stand the developers want to remove the potion of restore abilities in 0.17. (The trunk version indeed contains none of it.) What a calamity! -- Bwijn (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2015 (CEST)