|
Post by Zipp on Nov 23, 2004 2:24:37 GMT
Figured I'd bundle these all into one post.
First off, you never actually kill Maouk (leader of the Zahkan's gaurd) do you?
And when does limpdeath actually kill you? Was it in a later book? I cannot remember... not that I have it, thank kai, just curious.
Finally, does anyone else think the "maze" at the end of Kingdoms of Terror is a bit of a cop out? I mean, it's basically a "do not, whatever you do, choose this section" thing. And the Dakomyd, while an enigmatic creature, isn't that hard (except that he kills you straight out if you try to finish him off, like everyone tried to on their first time through).
|
|
|
Post by Nathan P. Mahney on Nov 23, 2004 4:34:53 GMT
Nope, you never do get Maouk. A return appearance in Book 9 wouldn't have gone astray.
I don't think you actually can die of limbdeath. I'm certain it's not possible to finish Book 5 without healing yourself with the Oede Herb, but I could be wrong.
And yep, the Tekaro sewers really aren't fair. At least there's the Map of Tekaro to help you out, though. And I didn't keep fighting the Dakomyd on my first go!
|
|
|
Post by Ghost of Landar on Nov 23, 2004 6:34:07 GMT
I never liked how that Dakomyd scene worked. The idea that ANYTHING would destroy the Sommerswerd is risible. Clearly that passage was poorly conceived and was meant for someone who DID NOT have the Sommerswerd. There should have been a separate passage for the Sommerswerd, maybe where you get more claws in you and you drop your weapon and then you die.
Then again, the idea of having the Sommerswerd and not being able to defeat one particular enemy is pretty much not in my ability to conceive. Here is a weapon that makes NAAR afraid. I highly doubt a flippin Dakomyd is much of a match.
|
|
|
Post by outspaced on Nov 23, 2004 9:30:48 GMT
The idea that ANYTHING would destroy the Sommerswerd is risible. Clearly that passage was poorly conceived and was meant for someone who DID NOT have the Sommerswerd. Bear in mind this question and official answer from Newsletter 6: This means that Lone Wolf can carry multiple 'weaponlike Special Items' in addition to two non-magical Weapons during the books--purely to avoid unpleasant instances like the one in Book 6!
|
|
columbob
Kai Lord
Up the Irons!
Posts: 161
|
Post by columbob on Nov 23, 2004 12:41:54 GMT
Bear in mind this question and official answer from Newsletter 6: This means that Lone Wolf can carry multiple 'weaponlike Special Items' in addition to two non-magical Weapons during the books--purely to avoid unpleasant instances like the one in Book 6! I think he was rather referring to this section: 323 The Dakomyd shudders and reels back as your weapon makes impact, sinking deep into flesh that clings like jelly and reeks of a charnel smell that closes your throat. A drop of its watery blood splashes on your arm, eating through your tunic and searing your flesh. Your weapon disintegrates, corroded by the blood. Before you can pull away, a razor-sharp talon snares your cloak and draws you to your doom. Your life and your quest end here in
|
|
|
Post by Ghost of Landar on Nov 23, 2004 13:00:49 GMT
Exactly!
No way the Sommerswerd is dissolved in the blood of some B-level monster when it effortlessly stole the life from the Chaos-Master.
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Nov 23, 2004 14:36:22 GMT
No way the Sommerswerd is dissolved in the blood of some B-level monster when it effortlessly stole the life from the Chaos-Master. Effortl... what? Are we talking about the same Chaos-Master here? Anyway, I think the point from the newsletter stands. "Your weapon" will more than likely refer to something besides the Sommerswerd - something more corrodable.
|
|
|
Post by Frying Pan on Nov 24, 2004 3:55:11 GMT
Err, what does it matter whether or not the Sommerswerd dissolves? You're stone dead anyway, right?
Sounds like one of those "if a tree falls in a forest and nobody hears it, does it make a noise?" kind of arguments.
|
|
|
Post by Zipp on Nov 24, 2004 5:37:46 GMT
Except that the tree in this instance would be all of Magnamund.
|
|
|
Post by Ghost of Landar on Nov 24, 2004 6:06:05 GMT
I guess my point is, that the flowchart was flawed on that.
If you have the Sommerswerd it WILL NOT DISSOLVE. Recall that if you use the SOmmerswerd on the guard-creatures of Ixiataaga, that he will come in and surprise you with a blast and kill you.
I just think it was written without forethought and in the case of the Sommerswerd, if it can slay the greatest champions of Naar without pieces of them reforming to kill him, then it would kill the friggin Dakomyd.
|
|
|
Post by Ghost Bear on Nov 24, 2004 6:55:33 GMT
Obviously not.
I don't see why one necessarily has to follow on from the other. If Naar created the Dakomyd so that it could only be killed by a Lorestone, then why would the Sommerswerd affect it?
Weapons that can kill the creator can't always kill his creations... Chucking the One Ring into the fires of Mount Doom wouldn't do much about the orc that's about to stick his sword into your head (for instance).
-GB
|
|
|
Post by Zipp on Nov 24, 2004 7:51:25 GMT
These are all good reasons, I guess I still had a defenite what the [fudge] moment when I died though. I didn't really think about the Sommerswerd, I just accepted my green acidic death...
|
|
|
Post by Ghost of Landar on Nov 24, 2004 7:51:48 GMT
Come now, the Sommerswerd's only vulnerability is being wielded by a non-Kai(innately able, at least.)
The same sword that has throw back all types of dark magics and survived basically everything and is indestructible.
Ockham's Razor, Ghost Bear--it makes a lot more sense considering what the Sword of the Sun does in all the LW adventures that the text merely neglected the possession of the Sommerswerd, (unlike future books which made it clear how you could be killed in an instant even WITH the Sword) than it does that the Dakomyd is the ONE creature in the universe which has blood that will destroy the sword and is somehow invulnerable to the completely destructive nature of the Sword on creatures of Evil.
Vaxagore, Chaos-Master, Darklords galore, Cadak, Zakhan Kimah, Ixiataaga---surely, if it were so easy to make a creature invulnerable to the Sword, it would have been done more than once?
No, the more logical conclusion is that the text simply didn't take into account the Sommerswerd in the written depiction of what happened.
|
|
Ghost Bear not logged in
Guest
|
Post by Ghost Bear not logged in on Nov 24, 2004 9:02:56 GMT
You're right. But as I've mentioned before, there is good reason for that. A matter of space. If Dever gave different paragraphs/sections for each possibility, not only would each section be huge, but each book would be too...
If you possess the Sommerswerd, turn to...
If you possess the Bronin Warhammer, turn to...
If you possess the Silver Bow of Duadon, turn to...
If you possess the Dagger of Vashna, turn to...
I'm sure you get the idea.
-GB
|
|
|
Post by Nyxator on Nov 24, 2004 14:00:35 GMT
Even though it can be considered a minor glitch, I agree that a separate section in case you have the Sommerswerd would have made much more sense. In one of the last gamebooks, Rimoah comments that the Sommerswerd is capable of killing any and every of Naar's creations.
|
|