Talk:Rune

It would be nice if we could get pictures of the icons to place in the types section. I could take screenshots, I guess. Are there pictures in the fan site pack? I couldn't find any in the uploaded images page for the wiki. --Fyren 10:58, 29 Jun 2005 (EST)

Should the Rune of Holding be mentioned here? It fits the description. -- Serps 11:12, 17 October 2005 (EST)

From Talk:Rune listing
Since runes are items, maybe each rune should have its own page? Something like...

Category:Items | +-Category:Upgrade Items |   +-Category:Runes |     +- Minor Rune of Healing Prayers

Dunno if that's over the top or anything :) -LordBiro

top! :)

I like it, anyone wanna start on it? ;p Nunix

Since the items category is strating to take off I'm going to start splitting this up into seperate sections. Might need to have subcategories in order to sort these out... 21:09, 17 Jun 2005 (EST)

"Absorbtion" is mispelled. It should be "Absorption", but I don't have time to create new article, relink everything that is pointing to the old article, and mark it for deletion. For all the good of Wiki, it has its flaws.--Jackel 09:41, 13 Jul 2005 (EST)

What's with superior absorption doing -4 dmg? Isn't it 3? --Midk 14:32, 31 Jul 2005 (EST)
 * I'm pretty sure it's Minor -2, major -3, and superior -4, but I could be mistaken.--Talrath Stormcrush 15:10, 31 Jul 2005 (EST)

The rune page has the same info, just not explicitly listed out. --Fyren 18:25, 31 Jul 2005 (EST)

So which page is right? Actually, the rune page needs to be edited, it says minor was +20 health and major was +30... Still not sure what the correct values are. I'll fill in 30, 41, and 50 for now.. still not sure about the -1, -2, -4. I'll switch it to -4 for now, because I've never heard of such an idea, only -1, -2, -3... --Midk 20:08, 31 Jul 2005 (EST)

I hadn't noticed a discrepency between the pages, but there does seem to be something wrong with the explanation of the values in rune, specifically the amount of health they provide. 20:17, 31 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * Actually the reason I hadn't nticed a discrepency is because they were, I thought, correct, but it's Midk's new change that I think looks wrong :P A minor rune provides more health than a major rune? 20:23, 31 Jul 2005 (EST)
 * The values above for vigor are correct. I edited Rune to fix the major.  I don't know which value for superior absorption is correct. --Fyren 20:50, 31 Jul 2005 (EST)

My bad, that was a typo.. no idea how it got in there. :) --Midk 09:24, 1 Aug 2005 (EST)

This page and Runes are redudant in a way. That article tries to list the runes too. --Karlos 17:08, 1 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * I said that yesterday! I think we should axe this one.  --Fyren 19:26, 1 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * Amen. :) --Karlos 19:40, 1 Aug 2005 (EST)

So, anyone mind if I delete this page and change the main page to link to rune? --Fyren 07:24, 11 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * I'm all for it. Merge the content of Rune and Rune listing and then get rid of Rune listing. It is definetly redundant. --Tetris L 17:10, 2 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * P.S.: Now that this is a Candidate for Deletion, before we delete it we might add the listing to the bottom of the Rune article. It won't hurt. We might even add images for all the runes. --Tetris L 19:22, 2 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * I know what the government will say. If you think this content is worth keeping they'll remove the delete tag and tell you to move the content first. :) --Karlos 19:24, 2 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * I don't think the list is worth keeping, but I did ask for pictures for the different rune icons/sizes on the rune talk page... two months ago. --Fyren 19:29, 2 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * Huh? How would you arrange the pictures of the runes without a list? --Tetris L 19:35, 2 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * Not of every rune. Just of each icon and size, so only six images.  --Fyren 23:39, 5 Sep 2005 (EST)

This looks familiar
http://home.iprimus.com.au/ianclark/dinew/guides/rune.htm is that allowed? Skuld &Dagger; 01:15, 18 October 2005 (EST)
 * Yep, that's the nature of wikis, free to use and copy, provided that the user/copier also allows free use of the information. - Jersyko the Insane 06:53, 3 November 2005 (EST)
 * Yes but with the licsence(sp) i think karlos siad they avhe to l ink back or soemthing 07:36, 3 November 2005 (EST)


 * Actually, provided the user references his source, allows free distribution and does not sell the info. I have been trying to contact them and failing. --Karlos 09:07, 3 November 2005 (EST)

of Holding
isn't it weird that a "Rune of Holding" is not a rune? o_O""" -PanSola 13:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * How is it not a rune?? 19:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's "not" a rune by the way this article "Rune" defines and characterizes runes. -PanSola 22:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Remember that this site does not define the game. it's the other way around... if you are saying it should be added to the article, then go ahead and add it.  03:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No. It's this site's user's intepretations of the game that defines the site.  The game might internally define what "Undead" is, but if we can't tell what the game defined the Smoke Phantom is, we will use our own interprations when writing the Undead and the Smoke Phantom articles.  And that's why we have talk pages, to sort out interprations.  I was trying to solicit other people's opinions over a month ago, and with no response and other more important issues to care about, left this along.  What do *you* think about the article? -PanSola 03:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nothing in perticular. I would think a page named *rune*s should contain the Rune of Holding, but as you said, players interpetation of *runes* does not contain it, I would guess that this is mainly because the Rune of Holding does not being traded by Rune Traders, or drop. 03:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Superior = 100% recovery
An anonymous user posted that salvaging customized armor with a superior kit will yield the runes at a 100% clip. I find that highly questionable. Please provide any evidence to this (or to the contrary) here. Thanks. --Karlos 12:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Never heard that. I doubt it's true. When ANet made the salvage chance of runes from salvage items 100% they said that there is still a small chance of destroying a rune when trying to salvage it back from armor. At that point the SSK didn't exists yet, but I'm 99% sure that the SSK does the exact same as an ESK. -- 16:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

A superior will "almost always" recover the rune:

Well, so will an expert kit. Based on my attempts, it has a better than 75% chance of recovering the rune (I may have been luck, I have only done this 10 times or so). To prove that the superior kit does better (or even different) than an expert kit. You'd need to buy like 5 pieces of armor and 50 minor runes and try to salvage 25 with an expert kit and 25 with a superior kit and see if you get different results. Otherwise it is gossip. If there's a forum link on some other site, please post it here. --Karlos 11:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

With the update I've never not had one salvaged, with either kit. It doesn't make any sense, ity's been stated it's just a bigger expert {user:skuld/sig}} 212.158.245.101 04:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I've got a dumb question here- Can you stack the effects of multiple Runes of Absorption? About a week ago, I overheard a heated argument in a public channel about this subject. Somebody pointed out that Absorption runes didn't have the same 'non-stacking' text that Vigor or Attribute runes did. Are they stackable? (ie- if you planted a Superior Absorption rune in each of 5 worn pieces of armor, you would have a -15 received damage?) Or is this just a typo? ~Ereshki Gal
 * I'm 99% sure that the answer is "No." You should have one rune of absorption and one peice of damage-reducing armor, at most. --130.58 01:47, 27 February 2006 (CST)
 * I would like to point out that the Absorption runes doesn't have the same 'stacking' text that headgears do. IMHO, this whole "stacking" vs "non-stacking" textual update created as much confusion as it solved. -PanSola 03:11, 27 February 2006 (CST)
 * You know what I thikn would be EXTREMELY funny.. If it turned out they only apply to the piece they are worn on. i.e. they are neither stacking nor non-stacking. They simply deduct 3 dmg from the piece they are on :) That would bring their price down, tremendously :) --Karlos 18:10, 27 February 2006 (CST)


 * That has been what I have heard for the longest time. I thought there was even discussion about it here, but maybe it was on other boards.  "If you get an absorbtion rune, use it on your chest armor as that is where it will do the most good."  --Rainith 18:19, 27 February 2006 (CST)


 * I believe that the absorbtion rune only applies to the piece that it covers. Why? The Energy Burn from the Forgotten in the Dragons Lair consistently drain 10 energy and deal 80 damage, while the major absorbtion is stuck on the helmet. The only time it ever does a different amount is when my shield activates to take 1 less damage (5%), for a total of 79 damage instead.

That is pretty funny. I'm really glad I've always planted them on my chest piece now. Thanks guys. ~Ereshki Gal